Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 6, 2023 / Notices 84789 

1See Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s 

Republic of China, Indonesia, Mexico, and the 

Republic of Turkey: Initiation of Countervailing 

Duty Investigations, 88 FR 74433 (October 31, 

2023). 

2The petitioners are the U.S. Aluminum 

Extruders Coalition (the members of which are 

Alexandria Extrusion Company; APEL Extrusions; 

Bonnell Aluminum; Brazeway; Custom Aluminum 

Products; Extrudex Aluminum; International 

Extrusions; Jordan Aluminum Company; M–D 

Building Products, Inc.; Merit Aluminum 

Corporation; MI Metals; Pennex Aluminum; Tower 

Extrusions; and Western Extrusions) and the United 

Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, 

Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers 

International Union. 

3See Petitioners’ Letter, ‘‘Request for 

Postponement of the Preliminary Determination,’’ 

dated November 29, 2023. 

4 Id. 

5Because the extended deadline for these 

preliminary determinations falls on the weekend 

(i.e., March 2, 2024), the deadline becomes the next 

business day. See Notice of Clarification: 

Application of ‘‘Next Business Day’’ Rule for 

Administrative Determination Deadlines Pursuant 

to the Tariff Act of 1930, As Amended, 70 FR 24533 

(May 10, 2005). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Eliza Delong (the People’s Republic of 

China (China)), Thomas Martin 

(Indonesia), Christopher Williams 

(Mexico), and Megan Goins (the 

Republic of Turkey (Turkey)), AD/CVD 

Operations, Enforcement and 

Compliance, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 

NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 

(202) 482–3878, (202) 482–3936, (202) 

482–5166, or (202) 482–0884, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On October 24, 2023, the U.S. 

Department of Commerce (Commerce) 

initiated countervailing duty (CVD) 

investigations of imports of aluminum 

extrusions from China, Indonesia, 

Mexico, and Turkey.1 Currently, the 

preliminary determinations are due no 

later than December 28, 2023. 

Postponement of Preliminary 

Determinations 

Section 703(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the Act), requires 

Commerce to issue the preliminary 

determination in a CVD investigation 

within 65 days after the date on which 

Commerce initiated the investigation. 

However, section 703(c)(1) of the Act 

permits Commerce to postpone the 

preliminary determination until no later 

than 130 days after the date on which 

Commerce initiated the investigation if: 

(A) the petitioner makes a timely 

request for a postponement; or (B) 

Commerce concludes that the parties 

concerned are cooperating, that the 

investigation is extraordinarily 

complicated, and that additional time is 

necessary to make a preliminary 

determination. Under 19 CFR 

351.205(e), the petitioner must submit a 

request for postponement 25 days or 

more before the scheduled date of the 

preliminary determination and must 

state the reasons for the request. 

Commerce will grant the request unless 

it finds compelling reasons to deny the 

request. 

On November 29, 2023, the 

petitioners 2 submitted a timely request 

that Commerce postpone the 

preliminary determinations in these 

investigations.3 The petitioners state 

that it is necessary to extend the 

deadline for the preliminary 

determinations to collect the necessary 

information for determining the most 

accurate possible CVD subsidy rates, 

because the full questionnaire responses 

are not due until a few days before and 

after the current preliminary 

determinations deadline, which gives 

Commerce little or no time to review 

responses from respondents, issue 

supplemental questionnaires, or 

consider deficiency comments before 

reaching a preliminary determination.4

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.205(e), the petitioners have stated 

the reasons for requesting a 

postponement of the preliminary 

determinations, and Commerce finds no 

compelling reason to deny the request. 

Therefore, in accordance with section 

703(c)(1)(A) of the Act, Commerce is 

postponing the deadline for the 

preliminary determinations to no later 

than 130 days after the date on which 

these investigations were initiated, i.e., 

March 4, 2024.5 Pursuant to section 

705(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.210(b)(1), the deadline for the final 

determinations of these investigations 

will continue to be 75 days after the 

date of the preliminary determinations. 

This notice is issued and published 

pursuant to section 703(c)(2) of the Act 

and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1). 

Dated: November 30, 2023. 

Abdelali Elouaradia, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement 

and Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2023–26746 Filed 12–5–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XD407] 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to Transco Lower 

New York Bay Lateral (LNYBL) Natural 

Gas Pipeline Maintenance in Sandy 

Hook Channel, NJ 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental 

harassment authorization; request for 

comments on proposed authorization 

and possible renewal. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request 

from Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line 

Company LLC (Transco), a subsidiary of 

Williams Partners L.P., for authorization 

to take marine mammals incidental to 

pile driving associated with the LNYBL 

Natural Gas Pipeline Maintenance in 

Sandy Hook Channel, New Jersey (NJ). 

Pursuant to the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is 

requesting comments on its proposal to 

issue an incidental harassment 

authorization (IHA) to incidentally take 

marine mammals during the specified 

activities. NMFS is also requesting 

comments on a possible one-time, 1 year 

renewal that could be issued under 

certain circumstances and if all 

requirements are met, as described in 

Request for Public Comments at the end 

of this notice. NMFS will consider 

public comments prior to making any 

final decision on the issuance of the 

requested MMPA authorization and 

agency responses will be summarized in 

the final notice of our decision. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than January 5, 

2024. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be 

addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, 

Permits and Conservation Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service and should be 

submitted via email to ITP.Fleming@

noaa.gov. Electronic copies of the 

application and supporting documents, 

as well as a list of the references cited 

in this document, may be obtained 

online at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-constructionactivities. In case of problems accessing 

these documents, please call the contact 

listed above. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
84790 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 6, 2023 / Notices 

Instructions: NMFS is not responsible 

for comments sent by any other method, 

to any other address or individual, or 

received after the end of the comment 

period. Comments, including all 

attachments, must not exceed a 25- 

megabyte file size. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted online at 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/ 

incidental-take-authorizations-undermarine-mammal-protection-act without 

change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit confidential business 

information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate 

Fleming, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The MMPA prohibits the ‘‘take’’ of 

marine mammals, with certain 

exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and 

(D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et 

seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce 

(as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon 

request, the incidental, but not 

intentional, taking of small numbers of 

marine mammals by U.S. citizens who 

engage in a specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) within a specified 

geographical region if certain findings 

are made and either regulations are 

proposed or, if the taking is limited to 

harassment, a notice of a proposed IHA 

is provided to the public for review. 

Authorization for incidental takings 

shall be granted if NMFS finds that the 

taking will have a negligible impact on 

the species or stock(s) and will not have 

an unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the species or stock(s) for 

taking for subsistence uses (where 

relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe 

the permissible methods of taking and 

other ‘‘means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact’’ on the 

affected species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance, and on the 

availability of the species or stocks for 

taking for certain subsistence uses 

(referred to in shorthand as 

‘‘mitigation’’); and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of the takings are set forth. 

The definitions of all applicable MMPA 

statutory terms cited above are included 

in the relevant sections below. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

To comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and 

NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 

216–6A, NMFS must review our 

proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an 

IHA) with respect to potential impacts 

on the human environment. 

This action is consistent with 

categories of activities identified in 

Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no 

anticipated serious injury or mortality) 

of the Companion Manual for NOAA 

Administrative Order 216–6A, which do 

not individually or cumulatively have 

the potential for significant impacts on 

the quality of the human environment 

and for which we have not identified 

any extraordinary circumstances that 

would preclude this categorical 

exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has 

preliminarily determined that the 

issuance of the proposed IHA qualifies 

to be categorically excluded from 

further NEPA review. 

We will review all comments 

submitted in response to this notice 

prior to concluding our NEPA process 

or making a final decision on the IHA 

request. 

Summary of Request 

On April 28, 2023, NMFS received a 

request from Transco for an IHA to take 

marine mammals incidental to pile 

driving activities associated with the 

LNYBL maintenance project in Sandy 

Hook Channel, NJ. On September 1, 

2023 Transco submitted updates to the 

planned daily duration of pile driving 

and on October 27, 2023, Transco 

notified NMFS of changes to project 

timing. Following NMFS’ review of the 

application, discussions between NMFS 

and Transco, and reanalysis following 

the aforementioned project changes, the 

application was deemed adequate and 

complete on November 2, 2023. 

Transco’s request is for take of 11 

species of marine mammals, by Level B 

harassment and, for a subset of 3 of 

these species, Level A harassment. 

Neither Transco nor NMFS expect 

serious injury or mortality to result from 

this activity and, therefore, an IHA is 

appropriate. 

Description of Proposed Activity 

Overview 

Transco is proposing construction 

activities to stabilize the LNYBL natural 

gas pipeline that extends 34 miles (mi) 

[55 kilometers (km)] in Raritan Bay, 

Lower New York Bay, and the Atlantic 

Ocean from Morgan, NJ to Long Beach, 

New York (NY). During routine 

monitoring of the existing LNYBL, 

Transco identified seven discrete 

sections of the gas pipeline with either 

limited cover or exposure resulting from 

dynamic conditions. The LNYBL 

maintenance project is the maintenance 

of pipeline sections with seven 

corresponding ‘‘work areas’’ that 

encompass all in-water temporary work 

spaces within NY and NJ where projectrelated activities may cause sediment 

disturbance. To stabilize the pipeline, 

Transco would place rock over the 

pipeline at seven distinct work areas. At 

Work Area 3, near Sandy Hook Channel, 

NJ, Transco would install 960 sheet 

piles to provide additional stability and 

protection, and to mitigate future seabed 

lowering and erosion along the north 

flank of Sandy Hook Channel. Proposed 

activities included as part of the project 

with potential to affect marine mammals 

include vibratory and impact pile 

driving of steel sheet piles at Work Area 

3 on 80 days between June and 

September 2024. Other in-water work 

described above would not cause take of 

marine mammals. 

Dates and Duration 

Pile driving activities are planned to 

occur between June 15 and September 

15, 2024. Pile installation and removal 

activities are expected to take a total of 

80 days. Additional in-water 

construction activities (i.e., rock 

placement) would occur through 

November 2024. 

Specific Geographic Region 

The proposed pile driving activity 

will occur at Sandy Hook Channel, 

where Raritan Bay and Lower New York 

Bay meet, in NJ state waters (Figure 1) 

and adjacent to the northwest portion of 

the New York Bight. Leading to the Port 

of New York and New Jersey, these bays 

experience significant commercial and 

recreational vessel activity. The work 

area is subject to erosional forces 

associated with high tidal currents near 

Sandy Hook Peninsula resulting from 

sand deposition at the Sandy Hook 

landmass spit. Depths at Work Area 3 

range from 5.3 meters (m) [17.3 feet (ft)] 

to 10.6 m (34.8 ft). However, the 

harassment zones would extend 13.6 km 

(8.5 mi) and reach depths greater than 

20 m (66 ft). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 6, 2023 / Notices 84791 

Figure 1. Map illustrating the proposed 

project location in Sandy Hook 

Channel, NJ. 

Detailed Description of the Specified 

Activity 

Transco plans to maintain the LNYBL, 

which is a 26-inch (in) [66 centimeter 

(cm)] diameter concrete coated natural 

gas pipeline that extends 34 miles in 

Raritan Bay, Lower New York Bay, and 

the Atlantic Ocean from Morgan, NJ to 

Long Beach, NY. Transco plans to 

install 960 36-in (91 cm) long sheet piles 

approximately 600 ft (183 m) north of 

Sandy Hook Channel, to establish a 

retaining wall approximately 18 ft (5.5 

m) south of the pipeline that prevents 

the currents at Sandy Hook Channel 

from further eroding the underlying 

seabed. To reduce potential seabed 

erosion on the southern (channel) side 

of the sheet pile wall, armor rock 

placement will also be placed along the 

southern side of the sheet piles. The 

sheet piles will be installed using a 

barge-mounted vibratory hammer 

(vibro-hammer) and, when necessary, an 

impact hammer. A template will be 

fixed to the barge used for sheet pile 

installation, which will help position 

sheet piles and shorten the time needed 

for sheet pile installation compared to 

typical sheet pile installation methods. 

The sheet piles will be stored at a local 

port and will be brought out to the crane 

barge using supply barges with tugs. 

Sheet piles will be installed for 

approximately 2,400 ft (732 m). Each 

installed sheet pile will be surveyed for 

orientation to record the distance from 

the pipeline. 

Vibro-hammers continuously vibrate 

the sheet pile into the substrate until the 

desired depth is reached. A vibrohammer uses spinning counterweights, 

causing the sheet pile to vibrate at a 

high speed. The vibrating sheet pile 

causes the soil underneath it to 

‘‘liquefy’’ and allow the sheet pile to 

move easily into or out of the sediment. 

Once refusal is reached with the 

vibratory hammer, Transco will switch 

to a hydraulic impact hammer to attain 

an acceptable depth. A representative 

hydraulic impact hammer that may be 

used is the IHC Hydrohammer S 

Series—specifically, the S–30, S–40, 

and S–70. The rams of these 

Hydrohammers range from 1.5 to 3.5 

metric tons with maximum speeds from 

50 to 65 blows per minute. Maximum 

obtainable energy for the largest of the 

three models (S–70) is 51,630 footpounds (70 kilonewton meters) at its 

highest setting. The minimum rated 

energy for the smallest hammer (S–30) 

is 2,213 foot-pounds (3 kilonewton 

meters). 

Active sheet pile installation will 

occur during daylight hours on 80 days; 

daily operational time for the vibrohammer and impact hammer is 

expected to be 2 hours each, for a 

maximum total of 4 hours (table 1). 

Rock placement will follow shortly after 

sheet pile installation at a given location 

while sheet piling continues at a nearby 

location. 

Transco also plans to place rock 

material over six additional discrete 

locations along the pipeline that are 

exposed or poorly covered (Work areas 

1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7), totaling 26.52 acres), 

using barge or vessel mounted cranes 

with clamshell type buckets and 

multibeam sonar and/or ultra-short 

baseline beacons to support accurate 

placement. Only the pile driving 

activities at Work Area 3 have the 

potential to result in take of marine 

mammals, thus the rock placement 

components of the project, including 

vessel operations and rock placement 

validation equipment, are not discussed 

further in this document. Please refer to 

Transco’s application for additional 

information about project components 

that are not expected to result in the 

incidental take of marine mammals. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1EN06DE23.085</GPH>

•-~~~"~·, Lower NY B~v- Lateral Plpelh\e 

- flock Placement loc~tion. 

•: Non-A.1~c.fo:i1111d Work~ac:t$ 

D And,~ored Wotkspat'fl.'S 

- Stat• W,ter Umlt 

I 

I I I I I I 1 

I l 

'3 4Mlkl:t 

,, I I . 

3N1tut~fMiles 
84792 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 6, 2023 / Notices 

TABLE 1—PILE INSTALLATION METHODS AND DURATIONS

Pile type Number of 

piles 

Average piles 

per day 

Average 

vibratory 

duration 

per pile 

(minutes) 

Impact strikes 

per pile 

Estimated total 

number of 

minutes per 

day 

Days of 

installation 

and removal 

36-inch sheet piles ................................... 960 12 10 520 240 80 

Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting measures are described in 

detail later in this document (please see 

Proposed Mitigation and Proposed 

Monitoring and Reporting). 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of Specified Activities 

Sections 3 and 4 of the application 

summarize available information 

regarding status and trends, distribution 

and habitat preferences, and behavior 

and life history of the potentially 

affected species. NMFS fully considered 

all of this information, and we refer the 

reader to these descriptions, instead of 

reprinting the information. Additional 

information regarding population trends 

and threats may be found in NMFS’ 

Stock Assessment Reports (SARs; 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

marine-mammal-stock-assessments) 

and more general information about 

these species (e.g., physical and 

behavioral descriptions) may be found 

on NMFS’ website (https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species). 

Table 2 lists all species or stocks for 

which take is expected and proposed to 

be authorized for this activity, and 

summarizes information related to the 

population or stock, including 

regulatory status under the MMPA and 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) and 

potential biological removal (PBR), 

where known. PBR is defined by the 

MMPA as the maximum number of 

animals, not including natural 

mortalities, that may be removed from a 

marine mammal stock while allowing 

that stock to reach or maintain its 

optimum sustainable population (as 

described in NMFS’ SARs). While no 

serious injury or mortality is anticipated 

or proposed to be authorized here, PBR 

and annual serious injury and mortality 

from anthropogenic sources are 

included here as gross indicators of the 

status of the species or stocks and other 

threats. 

Marine mammal abundance estimates 

presented in this document represent 

the total number of individuals that 

make up a given stock or the total 

number estimated within a particular 

study or survey area. NMFS’ stock 

abundance estimates for most species 

represent the total estimate of 

individuals within the geographic area, 

if known, that comprises that stock. For 

some species, this geographic area may 

extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed 

stocks in this region are assessed in 

NMFS’ U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico 

SARs (Hayes et al., 2022; Hayes et al., 

2023). All values presented in table 2 

are the most recent available at the time 

of publication and are available online 

at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

marine-mammal-stock-assessments. 

TABLE 2—SPECIES LIKELY IMPACTED BY THE SPECIFIED ACTIVITIES

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most recent 

abundance survey) 2

PBR Annual 

M/SI 3

Order Artiodactyla—Infraorder Cetacea—Mysticeti (baleen whales) 

Family Balaenopteridae 

(rorquals): 

Fin Whale ......................... Balaenoptera physalus ........... Western N Atlantic ................. E, D, Y 6,802 (0.24, 5,573, 2016) ...... 11 1.8 

Humpback Whale ............. Megaptera novaeangliae ........ Gulf of Maine .......................... -, -, N 1,396 ...................................... 22 12.15 

Minke Whale .................... Balaenoptera acutorostrata .... Canadian Eastern Coastal ..... -, -, N 21,968 (0.31, 17,002, 2016) .. 170 10.6 

Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) 

Family Delphinidae: 

Atlantic White-sided Dolphin.Lagenorhynchus acutus ......... Western N Atlantic ................. -, -, N 93,233 (0.71, 54,443, 2016) .. 544 27 

Bottlenose Dolphin ........... Tursiops truncatus .................. Northern Migratory Coastal .... -, -, Y 6,639, (0.41, 4,759, 2016) ..... 48 12.2–21.5 

Western North Atlantic Offshore.-, -, N 62,851 (0.23, 51,914, 2016) .. 519 28 

Common Dolphin ............. Delphinus delphis ................... Western N Atlantic ................. -, -, N 172,974 (0.21, 145,216, 2016) 1,452 390 

Atlantic Spotted Dolphin ... Stenella frontalis ..................... Western N Atlantic ................. -, -, N 39,921 (0.27, 32,032, 2016) .. 320 0 

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises): 

Harbor Porpoise ............... Phocoena phocoena .............. Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy ... -, -, N 95,543 (0.31, 74,034, 2016) .. 851 164 

Order Carnivora—Pinnipedia 

Family Phocidae (earless 

seals): 

Harp Seal ......................... Pagophilus groenlandicus ...... Western N Atlantic ................. -, -, N 7.6M (UNK, 7.1M, 2019) ........ 426,000 178,573 

Harbor Seal ...................... Phoca vitulina ......................... Western N Atlantic ................. -, -, N 61,336 (0.08, 57,637, 2018) .. 1,729 339 

Gray Seal 4 ....................... Halichoerus grypus ................ Western N Atlantic ................. -, -, N 27,300 (0.22, 22,785, 2016) .. 1,458 4,453 

1Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed under the 

ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR or 

which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed under the ESA is automatically 

designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1

I I I I 

I I I I 

I I I I 
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 6, 2023 / Notices 84793 

2 NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessmentreports. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. 3These values, found in NMFS’s SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries, vessel strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. 4This stock abundance estimate is only for the U.S. portion of this stock. The actual stock abundance, including the Canadian portion of the population, is estimated to be approximately 424,300 animals. The PBR value listed here is only for the U.S. portion of the stock, while M/SI reflects both the Canadian and U.S. 

portions. 

As indicated above, all 11 species 

(with 12 managed stocks) in table 2 

temporally and spatially co-occur with 

the activity to the degree that take is 

reasonably likely to occur. All species 

that could potentially occur in the 

proposed project areas are included in 

Table 3–1 of the IHA application. North 

Atlantic right whale, short-finned pilot 

whale, and long-finned pilot whale 

could potentially occur in the area. 

However, the spatial and temporal 

occurrence of these species is rare, and 

the applicant would shut down pile 

driving if they enter the project area. In 

the case of North Atlantic right whale, 

the take estimation process resulted in 

calculated exposure of 0.5. Given the 

low likelihood of the exposure in 

concert with the proposed requirement 

to shut down pile driving activities 

upon observation at any distance, take 

is not expected to occur. As such, they 

are not discussed further. 

On August 1, 2022, NMFS announced 

proposed changes to the existing North 

Atlantic right whale vessel speed 

regulations to further reduce the 

likelihood of mortalities and serious 

injuries to endangered right whales from 

vessel collisions, which are a leading 

cause of the species’ decline and a 

primary factor in an ongoing Unusual 

Mortality Event (UME) (87 FR 46921). 

Should a final vessel speed rule be 

issued and become effective during the 

effective period of this IHA (or any other 

MMPA incidental take authorization), 

the authorization holder would be 

required to comply with any and all 

applicable requirements contained 

within the final rule. Specifically, where 

measures in any final vessel speed rule 

are more protective or restrictive than 

those in this or any other MMPA 

authorization, authorization holders 

would be required to comply with the 

requirements of the rule. Alternatively, 

where measures in this or any other 

MMPA authorization are more 

restrictive or protective than those in 

any final vessel speed rule, the 

measures in the MMPA authorization 

would remain in place. These changes 

would become effective immediately 

upon the effective date of any final 

vessel speed rule and would not require 

any further action on NMFS’s part. 

Fin Whale 

Fin whales are common in waters of 

the U.S. Atlantic Exclusive Economic 

Zone, principally from Cape Hatteras 

northward (Hayes et al., 2022). Fin 

whales are present north of 35-degree 

latitude in every season and are broadly 

distributed throughout the western 

North Atlantic for most of the year, 

though densities vary seasonally 

(Edwards et. al., 2015). Fin whales are 

often found in small groups of up five 

to seven individuals (NMFS 2023). Fin 

whales have been observed in the 

waters off the eastern end of Long 

Island, but are more common in deeper 

waters. 

While there is no active UME for fin 

whale, strandings and mortalities are 

occasionally reported in NJ and NY 

waters (Hayes et al., 2021, Newman et 

al., 2012). Between 2015 and 2019, only 

one fin whale mortality was recorded in 

the vicinity of the Project area with a 

vessel strike reported as the likely cause 

(Henry et al., 2022). 

Humpback Whale 

Prior to 2016, humpback whales were 

listed under the ESA as an endangered 

species worldwide. Following a 2015 

global status review (Bettridge et al., 

2015), NMFS delineated 14 Distinct 

Population Segments (DPS) with 

different listing statuses (81 FR 62259, 

September 8, 2016) pursuant to the ESA. 

The West Indies DPS, which is not 

listed under the ESA, is the only DPS of 

humpback whales that is expected to 

occur in the survey area. 

Humpback whale sightings and 

mortalities in the New York Bight have 

been increasing over the last decade 

(Brown 2022) including in the bays that 

intersect with the project area. Between 

2011 and 2016, there have been at least 

46 humpback whale sightings within 

Lower New York Bay, Upper New York 

Bay, and Raritan Bay (Brown et al., 

2018). Most sightings occurred during 

the summer months (July to September), 

with no documented sightings in the 

winter (Brown et al., 2018). A total of 

617 humpback whale sightings were 

reported within the New York Bight 

based on data collected from 2011–2017 

(Brown et al., 2018). During winter, the 

majority of humpback whales from 

North Atlantic feeding areas mate and 

calve in the West Indies, where spatial 

and genetic mixing among feeding 

groups occurs, though significant 

numbers of animals are found in midand high-latitude regions at this time 

and some individuals have been sighted 

repeatedly within the same winter 

season, indicating that not all humpback 

whales migrate south every winter 

(Clapham et al., 1993). 

Since January 2016, elevated 

humpback whale mortalities have 

occurred along the Atlantic coast from 

Maine (ME) to Florida. Partial or full 

necropsy examinations have been 

conducted on 45 percent of the 202 

known cases. Of the whales examined, 

about 40 percent had evidence of 

human interaction, either ship strike or 

entanglement. While a portion of the 

whales have shown evidence of premortem vessel strike, this finding is not 

consistent across all whales examined 

and more research is needed. NOAA is 

consulting with researchers that are 

conducting studies on the humpback 

whale populations, and these efforts 

may provide information on changes in 

whale distribution and habitat use that 

could provide additional insight into 

how these vessel interactions occurred. 

Three previous UMEs involving 

humpback whales have occurred since 

2000, in 2003, 2005, and 2006. More 

information is available at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/marinemammal-unusual-mortality-events. 

Minke Whale 

Minke whales occur in temperate, 

tropical, and high-latitude waters. The 

Canadian East Coast stock can be found 

in the area from the western half of the 

Davis Strait (45° W) to the Gulf of 

Mexico (Hayes et al., 2022). This species 

generally occupies waters less than 100 

m deep on the continental shelf. There 

appears to be a strong seasonal 

component to minke whale distribution. 

During spring and summer, they appear 

to be widely distributed from just east 

of Montauk Point, Long Island, 

northeast to Nantucket Shoals, and 

north towards Stellwagen Bank and 

Jeffrey’s Ledge (CeTAP, 1982). During 

the fall, their range is much smaller and 

their abundance is reduced throughout 

their range (CeTAP, 1982). 

Since January 2017, elevated minke 

whale mortalities have occurred along 

the Atlantic coast from ME through 

South Carolina, with a total of 151 

strandings recorded when this 

document was written. This event has 

been declared a UME though it is 

currently considered non-active with 

closure pending. Full or partial 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
84794 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 6, 2023 / Notices 

necropsy examinations were conducted 

on more than 60 percent of the whales. 

Preliminary findings in several of the 

whales have shown evidence of human 

interactions or infectious disease, but 

these findings are not consistent across 

all of the whales examined, so more 

research is needed. More information is 

available at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/marinemammal-unusual-mortality-events. 

Atlantic White-Sided Dolphin 

The Atlantic white-sided dolphin 

occurs throughout temperate and subpolar waters of the North Atlantic, most 

prominently in continental shelf waters 

to depths of approximately 100 m (330 

ft) (Hayes et al., 2022). Atlantic whitesided dolphins of the western North 

Atlantic stock inhabit waters from 

central west Greenland to North 

Carolina (NC) and as far east as the midAtlantic ridge (Hamazaki 2002; 

Doksaeter et al., 2008; Hayes et al., 

2022). Seasonal shifts in abundance 

occur throughout the western North 

Atlantic region, where the dolphins 

appear to be more prevalent from 

Georges Bank to the lower Bay of Fundy 

from June through September. From 

October to December, they appear to 

occur at intermediate densities from 

southern Georges Bank to the southern 

Gulf of Maine (Payne et al., 1990; Hayes 

et al., 2022). Sightings of dolphins south 

of Georges Bank (Hudson Canyon in 

particular) occur year-round, but 

generally at lower densities (Hayes et 

al., 2022). 

Based on observations made during 

CeTAP surveys in 1982, Atlantic whitesided dolphins were found primarily 

east and north of Long Island and the 

project area. The Atlantic white-sided 

dolphins observed south of Long Island 

were farther offshore in the deeper 

water of the continental shelf proper 

and closer to the continental shelf slope. 

This species was largely absent from the 

overall region (Cape Hatteras, NC, to the 

Gulf of Maine) during the winter 

(CeTAP 1982). 

Historically, Atlantic white-sided 

dolphins have stranded along the coasts 

of NY and NJ. However, since 2015, no 

strandings have been reported in either 

state (Hayes et al., 2022). During 2013, 

two Atlantic white-sided dolphins 

stranded along the Long Island coast 

(RFMRP 2014) in March and May. 

Based on the known occurrence of 

this species in New England waters east 

and north of the Project area during the 

spring, summer, and fall, and the overall 

lack of presence throughout the region 

during the winter, it is possible that 

Atlantic white-sided dolphin could 

infrequently occur in the vicinity of the 

Project area during the in-water 

maintenance period. 

Bottlenose Dolphin 

There are two distinct bottlenose 

dolphin morphotypes in the western 

North Atlantic: The coastal and offshore 

forms (Hayes et al., 2018). The two 

morphotypes are genetically distinct 

based upon both mitochondrial and 

nuclear markers (Hoelzel et al., 1998; 

Rosel et al., 2009). The offshore form is 

distributed primarily along the outer 

continental shelf and continental slope 

in waters greater than 40 m from 

Georges Bank to the Florida Keys (Hayes 

et al., 2018). The Northern Migratory 

Coastal stock occupies coastal waters 

from the shoreline to approximately the 

20-m isobath between Assateague, VA, 

and Long Island, NY during warm water 

months. The stock migrates in late 

summer and fall and, during cold water 

months (best described by January and 

February), occupies coastal waters from 

approximately Cape Lookout, NC, to the 

NC/VA border (Garrison et al., 2017). 

Based on the known distribution of the 

Northern Migratory Coastal stock, this 

stock could also occur in the vicinity of 

the project during the proposed project; 

however, Sandy Hook, NJ (southeast of 

Raritan Bay) represents the northern 

extent of the stock’s range (Hayes et al., 

2018). 

From 2014 to 2018, 50 bottlenose 

dolphins stranded in NY and 88 

stranded in NJ (Hayes et al., 2020). A 

significant number of strandings 

occurred in 2013, with 38 strandings in 

NY and 153 strandings in NJ. The stock 

identity of these strandings is highly 

uncertain and may include individuals 

from the coastal and offshore stocks 

(Hayes et al., 2020). NMFS declared a 

UME for bottlenose dolphins in the midAtlantic region beginning in early July 

2013 and ending March 2015. This UME 

included elevated numbers of 

strandings in NY, NJ, Delaware, 

Maryland, and VA. Incidental take of 

dolphins proposed for authorization 

here may be of either the offshore or 

northern coastal migratory stocks. 

Common Dolphin 

The common dolphin is found worldwide in temperate to subtropical seas. In 

the North Atlantic, common dolphins 

are typically found over the continental 

shelf between the 100-m and 2,000-m 

isobaths and over prominent 

underwater topography and east to the 

mid-Atlantic Ridge (Doksaeter et al., 

2008; Waring et al., 2008), but may be 

found in shallower shelf waters as well. 

Common dolphins occur primarily east 

and north of Long Island and may occur 

in the project area during all seasons 

(CeTAP, 1982). Between 2015 and 2019, 

41 common dolphins stranded in NY 

and 14 stranded in NJ (Hayes et al., 

2022). 

Atlantic Spotted Dolphin 

Atlantic spotted dolphins are found in 

tropical and warm temperate waters 

ranging from southern New England, 

south to Gulf of Mexico and the 

Caribbean to Venezuela (Hayes et al., 

2020). The Western North Atlantic stock 

regularly occurs in continental shelf 

waters south of Cape Hatteras and in 

continental shelf edge and continental 

slope waters north of this region (Hayes 

et al., 2020). There are two forms of this 

species, with the larger ecotype 

inhabiting the continental shelf and 

usually occurring inside or near the 200- 

m isobaths (Hayes et al., 2020). It has 

been suggested that the species may 

move inshore seasonally during the 

spring, but data to support this theory 

is limited (Caldwell and Caldwell, 1966; 

Fritts et al., 1983). No Atlantic spotted 

dolphins have been stranded along the 

NY or NJ coasts in recent years. 

Harbor Porpoise 

Harbor porpoises occur from the 

coastline to deep waters (>1800 m; 

Westgate et al., 1998), although the 

majority of the population is found over 

the continental shelf in waters less than 

150 m (Hayes et al., 2022). In the project 

area, only the Gulf of Maine/Bay of 

Fundy stock of harbor porpoise may be 

present. This stock is found in U.S. and 

Canadian Atlantic waters and is 

concentrated in the northern Gulf of 

Maine and southern Bay of Fundy 

region in the summer, but they are 

widely dispersed from NJ to ME in the 

spring and fall (Hayes et al., 2022). In 

the winter, intermediate densities of 

harbor porpoises can be found in waters 

off NJ to NC, and lower densities of 

harbor porpoises can be found in waters 

of NY to New Brunswick, Canada. In 

2011, six sightings were recorded inside 

Long Island Sound with one sighting 

recorded just outside the Sound (NEFSC 

and SEFSC, 2011). Between 2011 and 

2015, 33 harbor porpoises stranded in 

NY and 17 stranded in NJ (Hayes et al., 

2018). Additionally, between 2015 and 

2019, 31 harbor porpoises stranded in 

NY and 32 stranded in NJ (Hayes et al., 

2022). 

Harp Seal 

Harp seals are highly migratory and 

occur throughout much of the North 

Atlantic and Arctic Oceans. Breeding 

occurs between late-February and April 

and adults then assemble on suitable 

pack ice to undergo the annual molt. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 6, 2023 / Notices 84795 

The migration then continues north to 

Arctic summer feeding grounds. Harp 

seal occurrence in the project area is 

considered rare. However, since the 

early 1990s, numbers of sightings and 

strandings have been increasing off the 

east coast of the United States from ME 

to NJ (Rubinstein 1994; Stevick and 

Fernald 1998; McAlpine 1999; Lacoste 

and Stenson 2000; Soulen et al., 2013). 

These extralimital appearances usually 

occur in January–May (Harris et al., 

2002), when the western North Atlantic 

stock is at its most southern point of 

migration. 

Between 2011 and 2015, 78 harp seals 

stranded (mortalities) in NY and 22 

stranded (mortalities) in NJ (Hayes et al., 

2018). During 2013, eight harp seals 

stranded (mortalities and alive) on Long 

Island (RFMRP, 2014). All of those 

strandings occurred between January 

and June. Between 2015 and 2019, 86 

harp seals stranded in NY and 15 

stranded in NJ (Hayes et al., 2022). 

As described above, elevated seal 

mortalities, including harp seals, 

occurred across ME, New Hampshire 

(NH) and Massachusetts (MA), and as 

far south as Virginia (VA), between July 

2018 and March 2020. This event was 

declared a UME though it is currently 

non-active with closure pending, with 

phocine distemper virus identified as 

the main pathogen found in the seals. 

Information on this UME is available 

online at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/marinemammal-unusual-mortality-events. 

Harbor Seal 

Harbor seals are found in all 

nearshore waters of the North Atlantic 

and North Pacific Oceans and adjoining 

seas above about 30° N (Burns, 2009). In 

the western North Atlantic, harbor seals 

are year-round inhabitants of the coastal 

waters of eastern Canada and ME and 

occur seasonally along the coasts from 

southern New England to VA. Their 

presence in the region of the project area 

increases from October to March, when 

adults, sub-adults, and juveniles are 

expected to migrate south from ME. 

They return north to the coastal waters 

of ME and Canada in late spring (Katona 

et al., 1993). The closest known haulout 

sites for harbor seals in the vicinity of 

the project area are located 2.9 km (1.8 

mi) southwest of the project site 

(Reynolds 2022) and 16.1 km (10 statute 

miles) east [Coastal Research and 

Education Society of Long Island 

(CRESLI) 2023], outside of the 

ensonified area. There are 

approximately 26 haulout locations 

around Long Island, and CRESLI has 

documented a total of 31,846 pinnipeds 

(primarily harbor seals) during surveys 

since 2006 (CRESLI 2023). 

Between July 2018 and March 2020, 

elevated numbers of harbor seal and 

gray seal mortalities occurred across 

ME, NH and MA. This event was 

declared a UME though it is currently 

non-active with closure pending. 

Stranded seals showed clinical signs as 

far south as VA, although not in 

elevated numbers, therefore the UME 

investigation encompassed all seal 

strandings from ME to VA. The main 

pathogen found in the seals was 

phocine distemper virus. Information on 

this UME is available online at: https:// 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/marinemammal-unusual-mortality-events. 

Gray Seal 

Gray seals in the project area belong 

to the western North Atlantic stock and 

range from NJ to Labrador. Current 

population trends show that gray seal 

abundance is likely increasing in the 

U.S. Atlantic EEZ (Hayes et al., 2022). 

Although the rate of increase is 

unknown, surveys conducted since their 

arrival in the 1980s indicate a steady 

increase in abundance in both ME and 

MA (Hayes et al., 2022). It is believed 

that recolonization by Canadian gray 

seals is the source of the U.S. 

population (Wood et al., 2011). The 

closest known haulout sites for gray 

seals in the vicinity of the project area 

are located 2.9 km (1.8 mi) southwest 

(Sandy Hook Beach) outside of the 

ensonified area (Reynolds 2022). 

Additional haulout sites are likely Little 

Gull Island in the Long Island Sound 

(CRESLI, 2023). Gray seals also haul out 

on Great Gull Island and Little Gull 

Island in eastern Long Island Sound 

(DiGiovanni et al., 2015). 

Between July 2018 and March 2020, 

elevated numbers of harbor seal and 

gray seal mortalities occurred across 

ME, NH and MA. This event was 

declared a UME though it is currently 

non-active with closure pending. 

Stranded seals showed clinical signs as 

far south as VA, although not in 

elevated numbers, therefore the UME 

investigation encompassed all seal 

strandings from ME to VA. The main 

pathogen found in the seals was 

phocine distemper virus. Information on 

this UME is available online at: https:// 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/marinemammal-unusual-mortality-events. 

Marine Mammal Hearing 

Hearing is the most important sensory 

modality for marine mammals 

underwater, and exposure to 

anthropogenic sound can have 

deleterious effects. To appropriately 

assess the potential effects of exposure 

to sound, it is necessary to understand 

the frequency ranges marine mammals 

are able to hear. Not all marine mammal 

species have equal hearing capabilities 

(e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok 

and Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 

2008). To reflect this, Southall et al., 

(2007, 2019) recommended that marine 

mammals be divided into hearing 

groups based on directly measured 

(behavioral or auditory evoked potential 

techniques) or estimated hearing ranges 

(behavioral response data, anatomical 

modeling, etc.). Note that no direct 

measurements of hearing ability have 

been successfully completed for 

mysticetes (i.e., low-frequency 

cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018) 

described generalized hearing ranges for 

these marine mammal hearing groups. 

Generalized hearing ranges were chosen 

based on the approximately 65 decibel 

(dB) threshold from the normalized 

composite audiograms, with the 

exception for lower limits for lowfrequency cetaceans where the lower 

bound was deemed to be biologically 

implausible and the lower bound from 

Southall et al., (2007) retained. Marine 

mammal hearing groups and their 

associated hearing ranges are provided 

in table 3. 

TABLE 3—MARINE MAMMAL HEARING GROUPS

[NMFS, 2018] 

Hearing group Generalized hearing 

range * 

Low-frequency (LF) cetaceans (baleen whales) ......................................................................................................................... 7 Hz to 35 kHz. 

Mid-frequency (MF) cetaceans (dolphins, toothed whales, beaked whales, bottlenose whales) .............................................. 150 Hz to 160 kHz. 

High-frequency (HF) cetaceans (true porpoises, Kogia, river dolphins, Cephalorhynchid, Lagenorhynchus cruciger & L. 

australis).

275 Hz to 160 kHz. 

Phocid pinnipeds (PW) (underwater) (true seals) ....................................................................................................................... 50 Hz to 86 kHz. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
84796 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 6, 2023 / Notices 

TABLE 3—MARINE MAMMAL HEARING GROUPS—Continued 

[NMFS, 2018] 

Hearing group Generalized hearing 

range * 

Otariid pinnipeds (OW) (underwater) (sea lions and fur seals) .................................................................................................. 60 Hz to 39 kHz. 

* Represents the generalized hearing range for the entire group as a composite (i.e., all species within the group), where individual species’ 

hearing ranges are typically not as broad. Generalized hearing range chosen based on ∼65 dB threshold from normalized composite audiogram, 

with the exception for lower limits for LF cetaceans (Southall et al., 2007) and PW pinniped (approximation). 

The pinniped functional hearing 

group was modified from Southall et al., 

(2007) on the basis of data indicating 

that phocid species have consistently 

demonstrated an extended frequency 

range of hearing compared to otariids, 

especially in the higher frequency range 

(Hemila ̈ et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., 

2009; Reichmuth et al., 2013). 

For more detail concerning these 

groups and associated frequency ranges, 

please see NMFS (2018) for a review of 

available information. 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

This section provides a discussion of 

the ways in which components of the 

specified activity may impact marine 

mammals and their habitat. The 

Estimated Take of Marine Mammals 

section later in this document includes 

a quantitative analysis of the number of 

individuals that are expected to be taken 

by this activity. The Negligible Impact 

Analysis and Determination section 

considers the content of this section, the 

Estimated Take of Marine Mammals 

section, and the Proposed Mitigation 

section, to draw conclusions regarding 

the likely impacts of these activities on 

the reproductive success or survivorship 

of individuals and whether those 

impacts are reasonably expected to, or 

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival. 

Acoustic effects on marine mammals 

during the specified activity can occur 

from impact and vibratory pile driving. 

These effects may result in Level A or 

Level B harassment of marine mammals 

in the project area. 

Description of Sound Sources 

The marine soundscape is comprised 

of both ambient and anthropogenic 

sounds. Ambient sound is defined as 

the all-encompassing sound in a given 

place and is usually a composite of 

sound from many sources both near and 

far (American National Standards 

Institute (ANSI) 1995). The sound level 

of an area is defined by the total 

acoustical energy being generated by 

known and unknown sources. These 

sources may include physical (e.g., 

waves, wind, precipitation, earthquakes, 

ice, atmospheric sound), biological (e.g., 

sounds produced by marine mammals, 

fish, and invertebrates), and 

anthropogenic sound (e.g., vessels, 

dredging, aircraft, construction). 

The sum of the various natural and 

anthropogenic sound sources at any 

given location and time—which 

comprise ‘‘ambient’’ or ‘‘background’’ 

sound—depends not only on the source 

levels (as determined by current 

weather conditions and levels of 

biological and shipping activity) but 

also on the ability of sound to propagate 

through the environment. In turn, sound 

propagation is dependent on the 

spatially and temporally varying 

properties of the water column and sea 

floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a 

result of the dependence on a large 

number of varying factors, ambient 

sound levels can be expected to vary 

widely over both coarse and fine spatial 

and temporal scales. Sound levels at a 

given frequency and location can vary 

by 10–20 dB from day to day 

(Richardson et al., 1995). The result is 

that, depending on the source type and 

its intensity, sound from the specified 

activity may be a negligible addition to 

the local environment or could form a 

distinctive signal that may affect marine 

mammals. 

In-water construction activities 

associated with the project would 

include impact and vibratory pile 

driving. The sounds produced by these 

activities fall into one of two general 

sound types: impulsive and nonimpulsive. Impulsive sounds (e.g., 

explosions, gunshots, sonic booms, 

impact pile driving) are typically 

transient, brief (less than 1 second), 

broadband, and consist of high peak 

sound pressure with rapid rise time and 

rapid decay [ANSI 1986; National 

Institute of Occupational Safety and 

Health (NIOSH) 1998; NMFS 2018]. 

Non-impulsive sounds (e.g., aircraft, 

machinery operations such as drilling or 

dredging, vibratory pile driving, and 

active sonar systems) can be broadband, 

narrowband or tonal, brief or prolonged 

(continuous or intermittent), and 

typically do not have the high peak 

sound pressure with rapid rise/decay 

time that impulsive sounds do (ANSI 

1995; NIOSH 1998; NMFS 2018). The 

distinction between these two sound 

types is important because they have 

differing potential to cause physical 

effects, particularly with regard to 

hearing (e.g., Ward 1997 in Southall et 

al., 2007). 

Two types of hammers would be used 

on this project: impact and vibratory. 

Impact hammers operate by repeatedly 

dropping a heavy piston onto a pile to 

drive the pile into the substrate. Sound 

generated by impact hammers is 

characterized by rapid rise times and 

high peak levels, a potentially injurious 

combination (Hastings and Popper, 

2005). Vibratory hammers install piles 

by vibrating them and allowing the 

weight of the hammer to push them into 

the sediment. Vibratory hammers 

produce significantly less sound than 

impact hammers. Peak sound pressure 

levels (SPLs) may be 180 dB or greater, 

but are generally 10 to 20 dB lower than 

SPLs generated during impact pile 

driving of the same-sized pile (Oestman 

et al., 2009). Rise time is slower, 

reducing the probability and severity of 

injury, and sound energy is distributed 

over a greater amount of time (Nedwell 

and Edwards, 2002; Carlson et al., 

2005). 

The likely or possible impacts of 

Transco’s proposed activity on marine 

mammals could involve both nonacoustic and acoustic stressors. 

Potential non-acoustic stressors could 

result from the physical presence of 

equipment and personnel; however, any 

impacts to marine mammals are 

expected to be primarily acoustic in 

nature. 

Acoustic Impacts 

The introduction of anthropogenic 

noise into the aquatic environment from 

pile driving is the means by which 

marine mammals may be harassed from 

Transco’s specified activity. In general, 

animals exposed to natural or 

anthropogenic sound may experience 

behavioral, physiological, and/or 

physical effects, ranging in magnitude 

from none to severe (Southall et al., 

2007, 2019). In general, exposure to pile 

driving noise has the potential to result 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 6, 2023 / Notices 84797 

in behavioral reactions (e.g., avoidance, 

temporary cessation of foraging and 

vocalizing, changes in dive behavior) 

and, in limited cases, auditory threshold 

shifts. Exposure to anthropogenic noise 

can also lead to non-observable 

physiological responses such an 

increase in stress hormones. Additional 

noise in a marine mammal’s habitat can 

mask acoustic cues used by marine 

mammals to carry out daily functions 

such as communication and predator 

and prey detection. The effects of pile 

driving noise on marine mammals are 

dependent on several factors, including, 

but not limited to, sound type (e.g., 

impulsive vs. non-impulsive), the 

species, age and sex class (e.g., adult 

male vs. mom with calf), duration of 

exposure, the distance between the pile 

and the animal, received levels, 

behavior at time of exposure, and 

previous history with exposure 

(Wartzok et al., 2004; Southall et al., 

2007). Here we discuss physical 

auditory effects (threshold shifts) 

followed by behavioral effects and 

potential impacts on habitat. 

NMFS defines a noise-induced 

threshold shift (TS) as a change, usually 

an increase, in the threshold of 

audibility at a specified frequency or 

portion of an individual’s hearing range 

above a previously established reference 

level (NMFS 2018). The amount of 

threshold shift is customarily expressed 

in dB. A TS can be permanent or 

temporary. As described in NMFS 

(2018), there are numerous factors to 

consider when examining the 

consequence of TS, including, but not 

limited to, the signal temporal pattern 

(e.g., impulsive or non-impulsive), 

likelihood an individual would be 

exposed for a long enough duration or 

to a high enough level to induce a TS, 

the magnitude of the TS, time to 

recovery (seconds to minutes or hours to 

days), the frequency range of the 

exposure (i.e., spectral content), the 

hearing and vocalization frequency 

range of the exposed species relative to 

the signal’s frequency spectrum (i.e., 

how animal uses sound within the 

frequency band of the signal; e.g., 

Kastelein et al., 2014), and the overlap 

between the animal and the source (e.g., 

spatial, temporal, and spectral). 

Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS)— 

NMFS defines PTS as a permanent, 

irreversible increase in the threshold of 

audibility at a specified frequency or 

portion of an individual’s hearing range 

above a previously established reference 

level (NMFS 2018). Available data from 

humans and other terrestrial mammals 

indicate that a 40 dB threshold shift 

approximates PTS onset (see Ward et 

al., 1958, 1959; Ward 1960; Kryter et al., 

1966; Miller 1974; Ahroon et al., 1996; 

Henderson et al., 2008). PTS levels for 

marine mammals are estimates, as with 

the exception of a single study 

unintentionally inducing PTS in a 

harbor seal (Kastak et al., 2008), there 

are no empirical data measuring PTS in 

marine mammals largely due to the fact 

that, for various ethical reasons, 

experiments involving anthropogenic 

noise exposure at levels inducing PTS 

are not typically pursued or authorized 

(NMFS 2018). 

Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS)—A 

temporary, reversible increase in the 

threshold of audibility at a specified 

frequency or portion of an individual’s 

hearing range above a previously 

established reference level (NMFS 

2018). Based on data from cetacean TTS 

measurements (see Southall et al., 

2007), a TTS of 6 dB is considered the 

minimum threshold shift clearly larger 

than any day-to-day or session-tosession variation in a subject’s normal 

hearing ability (Schlundt et al., 2000; 

Finneran et al., 2000, 2002). As 

described in Finneran (2015), marine 

mammal studies have shown the 

amount of TTS increases with 

cumulative sound exposure level 

(SELcum) in an accelerating fashion: At 

low exposures with lower SELcum, the 

amount of TTS is typically small and 

the growth curves have shallow slopes. 

At exposures with higher SELcum, the 

growth curves become steeper and 

approach linear relationships with the 

noise SEL. 

Depending on the degree (elevation of 

threshold in dB), duration (i.e., recovery 

time), and frequency range of TTS, and 

the context in which it is experienced, 

TTS can have effects on marine 

mammals ranging from discountable to 

serious (similar to those discussed in 

Masking, below). For example, a marine 

mammal may be able to readily 

compensate for a brief, relatively small 

amount of TTS in a non-critical 

frequency range that takes place during 

a time when the animal is traveling 

through the open ocean, where ambient 

noise is lower and there are not as many 

competing sounds present. 

Alternatively, a larger amount and 

longer duration of TTS sustained during 

time when communication is critical for 

successful mother/calf interactions 

could have more serious impacts. We 

note that reduced hearing sensitivity as 

a simple function of aging has been 

observed in marine mammals, as well as 

humans and other taxa (Southall et al., 

2007), so we can infer that strategies 

exist for coping with this condition to 

some degree, though likely not without 

cost. 

Currently, TTS data only exist for four 

species of cetaceans (bottlenose 

dolphin, beluga whale (Delphinapterus 

leucas), harbor porpoise, and Yangtze 

finless porpoise (Neophocoena 

asiaeorientalis)) and five species of 

pinnipeds exposed to a limited number 

of sound sources (i.e., mostly tones and 

octave-band noise) in laboratory settings 

(Finneran 2015). TTS was not observed 

in trained spotted (Phoca largha) and 

ringed (Pusa hispida) seals exposed to 

impulsive noise at levels matching 

previous predictions of TTS onset 

(Reichmuth et al., 2016). In general, 

harbor seals and harbor porpoises have 

a lower TTS onset than other measured 

pinniped or cetacean species (Finneran 

2015). Additionally, the existing marine 

mammal TTS data come from a limited 

number of individuals within these 

species. No data are available on noiseinduced hearing loss for mysticetes. For 

summaries of data on TTS in marine 

mammals or for further discussion of 

TTS onset thresholds, please see 

Southall et al., (2007), Finneran and 

Jenkins (2012), Finneran (2015), and 

table 5 in NMFS (2018). 

Activities for this project include 

impact and vibratory pile driving. There 

would likely be pauses in activities 

producing the sound during each day. 

Given these pauses and the fact that 

many marine mammals are likely 

moving through the project areas and 

not remaining for extended periods of 

time, the potential for threshold shift 

declines. 

Behavioral Harassment—Exposure to 

noise from pile driving also has the 

potential to behaviorally disturb marine 

mammals. Available studies show wide 

variation in response to underwater 

sound; therefore, it is difficult to predict 

specifically how any given sound in a 

particular instance might affect marine 

mammals perceiving the signal. If a 

marine mammal does react briefly to an 

underwater sound by changing its 

behavior or moving a small distance, the 

impacts of the change are unlikely to be 

significant to the individual, let alone 

the stock or population. However, if a 

sound source displaces marine 

mammals from an important feeding or 

breeding area for a prolonged period, 

impacts on individuals and populations 

could be significant (e.g., Lusseau and 

Bejder 2007; Weilgart 2007; National 

Research Council (NRC) 2005). 

Disturbance may result in changing 

durations of surfacing and dives, 

number of blows per surfacing, or 

moving direction and/or speed; 

reduced/increased vocal activities; 

changing/cessation of certain behavioral 

activities (such as socializing or 

feeding); visible startle response or 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
84798 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 6, 2023 / Notices 

aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke 

slapping or jaw clapping); avoidance of 

areas where sound sources are located. 

Pinnipeds may increase their haul out 

time, possibly to avoid in-water 

disturbance (Thorson and Reyff 2006). 

Behavioral responses to sound are 

highly variable and context-specific and 

any reactions depend on numerous 

intrinsic and extrinsic factors (e.g., 

species, state of maturity, experience, 

current activity, reproductive state, 

auditory sensitivity, time of day), as 

well as the interplay between factors 

(e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok et 

al., 2004; Southall et al., 2007; Weilgart 

2007; Archer et al., 2010). Behavioral 

reactions can vary not only among 

individuals but also within an 

individual, depending on previous 

experience with a sound source, 

context, and numerous other factors 

(Ellison et al., 2012), and can vary 

depending on characteristics associated 

with the sound source (e.g., whether it 

is moving or stationary, number of 

sources, distance from the source). In 

general, pinnipeds seem more tolerant 

of, or at least habituate more quickly to, 

potentially disturbing underwater sound 

than do cetaceans, and generally seem 

to be less responsive to exposure to 

industrial sound than most cetaceans. 

Please see Appendices B and C of 

Southall et al., (2007) for a review of 

studies involving marine mammal 

behavioral responses to sound. 

Disruption of feeding behavior can be 

difficult to correlate with anthropogenic 

sound exposure, so it is usually inferred 

by observed displacement from known 

foraging areas, the appearance of 

secondary indicators (e.g., bubble nets 

or sediment plumes), or changes in dive 

behavior. As for other types of 

behavioral response, the frequency, 

duration, and temporal pattern of signal 

presentation, as well as differences in 

species sensitivity, are likely 

contributing factors to differences in 

response in any given circumstance 

(e.g., Croll et al., 2001; Nowacek et al., 

2004; Madsen et al., 2006; Yazvenko et 

al., 2007; Melco ́n et al., 2012). In 

addition, behavioral state of the animal 

plays a role in the type and severity of 

a behavioral response, such as 

disruption to foraging (e.g., Sivle et al., 

2016). A determination of whether 

foraging disruptions incur fitness 

consequences would require 

information on or estimates of the 

energetic requirements of the affected 

individuals and the relationship 

between prey availability, foraging effort 

and success, and the life history stage of 

the animal (Goldbogen et al., 2013). 

Stress responses—An animal’s 

perception of a threat may be sufficient 

to trigger stress responses consisting of 

some combination of behavioral 

responses, autonomic nervous system 

responses, neuroendocrine responses, or 

immune responses (e.g., Seyle 1950; 

Moberg 2000). In many cases, an 

animal’s first and sometimes most 

economical (in terms of energetic costs) 

response is behavioral avoidance of the 

potential stressor. Autonomic nervous 

system responses to stress typically 

involve changes in heart rate, blood 

pressure, and gastrointestinal activity. 

These responses have a relatively short 

duration and may or may not have a 

significant long-term effect on an 

animal’s fitness. 

Neuroendocrine stress responses often 

involve the hypothalamus-pituitaryadrenal system. Virtually all 

neuroendocrine functions that are 

affected by stress—including immune 

competence, reproduction, metabolism, 

and behavior—are regulated by pituitary 

hormones. Stress-induced changes in 

the secretion of pituitary hormones have 

been implicated in failed reproduction, 

altered metabolism, reduced immune 

competence, and behavioral disturbance 

(e.g., Moberg 1987; Blecha 2000). 

Increases in the circulation of 

glucocorticoids are also equated with 

stress (Romano et al., 2004). 

The primary distinction between 

stress (which is adaptive and does not 

normally place an animal at risk) and 

‘‘distress’’ is the cost of the response. 

During a stress response, an animal uses 

glycogen stores that can be quickly 

replenished once the stress is alleviated. 

In such circumstances, the cost of the 

stress response would not pose serious 

fitness consequences. However, when 

an animal does not have sufficient 

energy reserves to satisfy the energetic 

costs of a stress response, energy 

resources must be diverted from other 

functions. This state of distress will last 

until the animal replenishes its 

energetic reserves sufficient to restore 

normal function. 

Relationships between these 

physiological mechanisms, animal 

behavior, and the costs of stress 

responses are well-studied through 

controlled experiments and for both 

laboratory and free-ranging animals 

(e.g., Holberton et al., 1996; Hood et al., 

1998; Jessop et al., 2003; Krausman et 

al., 2004; Lankford et al., 2005). Stress 

responses due to exposure to 

anthropogenic sounds or other stressors 

and their effects on marine mammals 

have also been reviewed (Fair and 

Becker 2000; Romano et al., 2002b) and, 

more rarely, studied in wild populations 

(e.g., Romano et al., 2002a). For 

example, Rolland et al., (2012) found 

that noise reduction from reduced ship 

traffic in the Bay of Fundy was 

associated with decreased stress in 

North Atlantic right whales. These and 

other studies lead to a reasonable 

expectation that some marine mammals 

will experience physiological stress 

responses upon exposure to acoustic 

stressors and that it is possible that 

some of these would be classified as 

‘‘distress.’’ In addition, any animal 

experiencing TTS would likely also 

experience stress responses (NRC 2003), 

however distress is an unlikely result of 

this project based on observations of 

marine mammals during previous, 

similar projects in the area. 

Masking—Sound can disrupt behavior 

through masking, or interfering with, an 

animal’s ability to detect, recognize, or 

discriminate between acoustic signals of 

interest (e.g., those used for intraspecific 

communication and social interactions, 

prey detection, predator avoidance, 

navigation) (Richardson et al., 1995). 

Masking occurs when the receipt of a 

sound is interfered with by another 

coincident sound at similar frequencies 

and at similar or higher intensity, and 

may occur whether the sound is natural 

(e.g., snapping shrimp, wind, waves, 

precipitation) or anthropogenic (e.g., 

pile driving, shipping, sonar, seismic 

exploration) in origin. The ability of a 

noise source to mask biologically 

important sounds depends on the 

characteristics of both the noise source 

and the signal of interest (e.g., signal-tonoise ratio, temporal variability, 

direction), in relation to each other and 

to an animal’s hearing abilities (e.g., 

sensitivity, frequency range, critical 

ratios, frequency discrimination, 

directional discrimination, age or TTS 

hearing loss), and existing ambient 

noise and propagation conditions. 

Masking of natural sounds can result 

when human activities produce high 

levels of background sound at 

frequencies important to marine 

mammals. Conversely, if the 

background level of underwater sound 

is high (e.g., on a day with strong wind 

and high waves), an anthropogenic 

sound source would not be detectable as 

far away as would be possible under 

quieter conditions and would itself be 

masked. 

Airborne Acoustic Effects—Airborne 

noise would primarily be an issue for 

pinnipeds that are swimming or hauled 

out near the project site within the range 

of noise levels elevated above the 

acoustic criteria. We recognize that 

pinnipeds in the water could be 

exposed to airborne sound that may 

result in behavioral harassment when 

looking with their heads above water. 

Most likely, airborne sound would 

cause behavioral responses similar to 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 6, 2023 / Notices 84799 

those discussed above in relation to 

underwater sound. For instance, 

anthropogenic sound could cause 

hauled-out pinnipeds to exhibit changes 

in their normal behavior, such as 

reduction in vocalizations, or cause 

them to temporarily abandon the area 

and move further from the source. 

However, these animals would 

previously have been ‘‘taken’’ because 

of exposure to underwater sound above 

the behavioral harassment thresholds, 

which are in all cases larger than those 

associated with airborne sound. Thus, 

the behavioral harassment of these 

animals is already accounted for in 

these estimates of potential take. 

Therefore, we do not believe that 

authorization of incidental take 

resulting from airborne sound for 

pinnipeds is warranted, and airborne 

sound is not discussed further. 

Cetaceans are not expected to be 

exposed to airborne sounds that would 

result in harassment as defined under 

the MMPA. 

Marine Mammal Habitat Effects 

The proposed activities would not 

result in permanent impacts to habitats 

used directly by marine mammals, but 

may have potential short-term impacts 

to food sources such as forage fish. The 

proposed activities could also affect 

acoustic habitat (see masking discussion 

above), but meaningful impacts are 

unlikely. There are no known foraging 

hotspots, or other ocean bottom 

structures of significant biological 

importance to marine mammals present 

in the project area. Therefore, the main 

impact issue associated with the 

proposed activity would be temporarily 

elevated sound levels and the associated 

direct effects on marine mammals, as 

discussed previously. The most likely 

impact to marine mammal habitat 

occurs from pile driving effects on likely 

marine mammal prey (e.g., fish). 

Impacts to the immediate substrate 

during installation of piles are 

anticipated, but these would be limited 

to minor, temporary suspension of 

sediments, which could impact water 

quality and visibility for a short amount 

of time, without any expected effects on 

individual marine mammals. Impacts to 

substrate are therefore not discussed 

further. 

In-water Construction Effects on 

Potential Prey—Sound may affect 

marine mammals through impacts on 

the abundance, behavior, or distribution 

of prey species (e.g., crustaceans, 

cephalopods, fish, zooplankton). Marine 

mammal prey varies by species, season, 

and location and, for some, is not well 

documented. Here, we describe studies 

regarding the effects of noise on known 

marine mammal prey. 

Fish utilize the soundscape and 

components of sound in their 

environment to perform important 

functions such as foraging, predator 

avoidance, mating, and spawning (e.g., 

Zelick et al., 1999; Fay, 2009). 

Depending on their hearing anatomy 

and peripheral sensory structures, 

which vary among species, fishes hear 

sounds using pressure and particle 

motion sensitivity capabilities and 

detect the motion of surrounding water 

(Fay et al., 2008). The potential effects 

of noise on fishes depends on the 

overlapping frequency range, distance 

from the sound source, water depth of 

exposure, and species-specific hearing 

sensitivity, anatomy, and physiology. 

Key impacts to fishes may include 

behavioral responses, hearing damage, 

barotrauma (pressure-related injuries), 

and mortality. 

Fish react to sounds which are 

especially strong and/or intermittent 

low-frequency sounds, and behavioral 

responses such as flight or avoidance 

are the most likely effects. Short 

duration, sharp sounds can cause overt 

or subtle changes in fish behavior and 

local distribution. The reaction of fish to 

noise depends on the physiological state 

of the fish, past exposures, motivation 

(e.g., feeding, spawning, migration), and 

other environmental factors. Hastings 

and Popper (2005) identified several 

studies that suggest fish may relocate to 

avoid certain areas of sound energy. 

Additional studies have documented 

effects of pile driving on fish, although 

several are based on studies in support 

of large, multiyear bridge construction 

projects (e.g., Scholik and Yan, 2001, 

2002; Popper and Hastings, 2009). 

Several studies have demonstrated that 

impulse sounds might affect the 

distribution and behavior of some 

fishes, potentially impacting foraging 

opportunities or increasing energetic 

costs (e.g., Fewtrell and McCauley, 

2012; Pearson et al., 1992; Skalski et al., 

1992; Santulli et al., 1999; Paxton et al., 

2017). However, some studies have 

shown no or slight reaction to impulse 

sounds (e.g., Pena et al., 2013; Wardle 

et al., 2001; Jorgenson and Gyselman, 

2009; Cott et al., 2012). More 

commonly, though, the impacts of noise 

on fish are temporary. 

SPLs of sufficient strength have been 

known to cause injury to fish and fish 

mortality. However, in most fish 

species, hair cells in the ear 

continuously regenerate and loss of 

auditory function likely is restored 

when damaged cells are replaced with 

new cells. Halvorsen et al., (2012a) 

showed that a TTS of 4–6 dB was 

recoverable within 24 hours for one 

species. Impacts would be most severe 

when the individual fish is close to the 

source and when the duration of 

exposure is long. Injury caused by 

barotrauma can range from slight to 

severe and can cause death, and is most 

likely for fish with swim bladders. 

Barotrauma injuries have been 

documented during controlled exposure 

to impact pile driving (Halvorsen et al., 

2012b; Casper et al., 2013). 

The most likely impact to fish from 

pile driving activities in the project area 

would be temporary behavioral 

avoidance of the area. The duration of 

fish avoidance of an area after pile 

driving stops is unknown, but a rapid 

return to normal recruitment, 

distribution and behavior is anticipated. 

In general, impacts to marine mammal 

prey species are expected to be minor 

and temporary due to the expected short 

daily duration of individual pile driving 

events and the relatively small areas 

being affected. 

Estimated Take of Marine Mammals 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes proposed 

for authorization through the IHA, 

which will inform both NMFS’ 

consideration of ‘‘small numbers,’’ and 

the negligible impact determinations. 

Harassment is the only type of take 

expected to result from these activities. 

Except with respect to certain activities 

not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the 

MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as any act 

of pursuit, torment, or annoyance, 

which (i) has the potential to injure a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild (Level A harassment); 

or (ii) has the potential to disturb a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild by causing disruption 

of behavioral patterns, including, but 

not limited to, migration, breathing, 

nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering 

(Level B harassment). 

Authorized takes would primarily be 

by Level B harassment, as use of the 

acoustic sources (i.e., impact and 

vibratory pile driving) has the potential 

to result in disruption of behavioral 

patterns for individual marine 

mammals. There is also some potential 

for auditory injury (Level A harassment) 

to result, for phocids because predicted 

auditory injury zones are relatively 

large, and seals are expected to be 

relatively common and are more 

difficult to detect at greater distances. 

The proposed mitigation and 

monitoring measures are expected to 

minimize the severity of the taking to 

the extent practicable. 

As described previously, no serious 

injury or mortality is anticipated or 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
84800 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 6, 2023 / Notices 

proposed to be authorized for this 

activity. Below we describe how the 

proposed take numbers are estimated. 

For acoustic impacts, generally 

speaking, we estimate take by 

considering: (1) acoustic thresholds 

above which NMFS believes the best 

available science indicates marine 

mammals will be behaviorally harassed 

or incur some degree of permanent 

hearing impairment; (2) the area or 

volume of water that will be ensonified 

above these levels in a day; (3) the 

density or occurrence of marine 

mammals within these ensonified areas; 

and, (4) the number of days of activities. 

We note that while these factors can 

contribute to a basic calculation to 

provide an initial prediction of potential 

takes, additional information that can 

qualitatively inform take estimates is 

also sometimes available (e.g., previous 

monitoring results or average group 

size). Below, we describe the factors 

considered here in more detail and 

present the proposed take estimates. 

Acoustic Thresholds 

NMFS recommends the use of 

acoustic thresholds that identify the 

received level of underwater sound 

above which exposed marine mammals 

would be reasonably expected to be 

behaviorally harassed (equated to Level 

B harassment) or to incur PTS of some 

degree (equated to Level A harassment). 

Level B Harassment—Though 

significantly driven by received level, 

the onset of behavioral disturbance from 

anthropogenic noise exposure is also 

informed to varying degrees by other 

factors related to the source or exposure 

context (e.g., frequency, predictability, 

duty cycle, duration of the exposure, 

signal-to-noise ratio, distance to the 

source), the environment (e.g., 

bathymetry, other noises in the area, 

predators in the area), and the receiving 

animals (hearing, motivation, 

experience, demography, life stage, 

depth) and can be difficult to predict 

(e.g., Southall et al., 2007, 2021, Ellison 

et al., 2012). Based on what the 

available science indicates and the 

practical need to use a threshold based 

on a metric that is both predictable and 

measurable for most activities, NMFS 

typically uses a generalized acoustic 

threshold based on received level to 

estimate the onset of behavioral 

harassment. NMFS generally predicts 

that marine mammals are likely to be 

behaviorally harassed in a manner 

considered to be Level B harassment 

when exposed to underwater 

anthropogenic noise above root-meansquared pressure received levels (RMS 

SPL) of 120 dB (referenced to 1 

micropascal (re 1 mPa)) for continuous 

(e.g., vibratory pile driving, drilling) and 

above RMS SPL 160 dB re 1 mPa for nonexplosive impulsive (e.g., seismic 

airguns) or intermittent (e.g., scientific 

sonar) sources. Generally speaking, 

Level B harassment take estimates based 

on these behavioral harassment 

thresholds are expected to include any 

likely takes by TTS as, in most cases, 

the likelihood of TTS occurs at 

distances from the source less than 

those at which behavioral harassment is 

likely. TTS of a sufficient degree can 

manifest as behavioral harassment, as 

reduced hearing sensitivity and the 

potential reduced opportunities to 

detect important signals (conspecific 

communication, predators, prey) may 

result in changes in behavior patterns 

that would not otherwise occur. 

Transco’s proposed activity includes 

the use of continuous (vibratory pile 

driving) and impulsive (impact pile 

driving) sources, and therefore the RMS 

SPL thresholds of 120 and 160 dB re 1 

mPa is/are applicable. 

Level A harassment—NMFS’ 

Technical Guidance for Assessing the 

Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on 

Marine Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) 

(Technical Guidance, 2018) identifies 

dual criteria to assess auditory injury 

(Level A harassment) to five different 

marine mammal groups (based on 

hearing sensitivity) as a result of 

exposure to noise from two different 

types of sources (impulsive or nonimpulsive). Transco’s proposed activity 

includes the use of impulsive (impact 

pile driving) and non-impulsive 

(vibratory pile driving) sources. 

These thresholds are provided in the 

table below. The references, analysis, 

and methodology used in the 

development of the thresholds are 

described in NMFS’ 2018 Technical 

Guidance, which may be accessed at: 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

marine-mammal-acoustic-technicalguidance. 

TABLE 4—THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT

Hearing group 

PTS onset acoustic thresholds * 

(received level) 

Impulsive Non-impulsive 

Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans ...................................... Cell 1: Lpk,flat: 219 dB; LE,LF,24h: 183 dB ......................... Cell 2: LE,LF,24h: 199 dB. 

Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans ...................................... Cell 3: Lpk,flat: 230 dB; LE,MF,24h: 185 dB ........................ Cell 4: LE,MF,24h: 198 dB. 

High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans ..................................... Cell 5: Lpk,flat: 202 dB; LE,HF,24h: 155 dB ........................ Cell 6: LE,HF,24h: 173 dB. 

Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater) ............................. Cell 7: Lpk,flat: 218 dB; LE,PW,24h: 185 dB ....................... Cell 8: LE,PW,24h: 201 dB. 

Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater) ............................. Cell 9: Lpk,flat: 232 dB; LE,OW,24h: 203 dB ....................... Cell 10: LE,OW,24h: 219 dB. 

* Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for calculating PTS onset. If a non-impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds should 

also be considered. 

Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 μPa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE) has a reference value of 1μPa2s. 

In this Table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect American National Standards Institute standards (ANSI 2013). However, peak sound pressure 

is defined by ANSI as incorporating frequency weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence, the subscript ‘‘flat’’ is being 

included to indicate peak sound pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized hearing range. The subscript associated 

with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates the designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF 

cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds) and that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The cumulative sound exposure level 

thresholds could be exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible, it is valuable for 

action proponents to indicate the conditions under which these acoustic thresholds will be exceeded. 

Ensonified Area 

Here, we describe operational and 

environmental parameters of the activity 

that are used in estimating the area 

ensonified above the acoustic 

thresholds, including source levels and 

transmission loss coefficient. 

The sound field in the project area is 

the existing background noise plus 

additional construction noise from the 

proposed project. Marine mammals are 

expected to be affected via sound 

generated by the primary components of 

the project (i.e., pile driving). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 6, 2023 / Notices 84801 

The project includes vibratory and 

impact pile driving. Source levels for 

these activities are based on reviews of 

measurements of the same or similar 

types and dimensions of piles available 

in the literature. Source levels for each 

pile size and activity are presented in 

table 5. Source levels for vibratory 

installation and removal of piles of the 

same diameter are assumed to be the 

same. 

TABLE 5—ESTIMATES OF MEAN UNDERWATER SOUND LEVELS GENERATED DURING VIBRATORY AND IMPACT PILE

INSTALLATION OF 36-INCH STEEL SHEET PILE

Hammer type dB rms dB SEL dB peak Literature source 

Vibratory ................................................. 182 N/A N/A Quijano et al., 2018. 

Impact .................................................... 190 180 205 Caltrans, 2015. 

Note: dB peak = peak sound level; rms = root mean square; SEL = sound exposure level. 

Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease 

in acoustic intensity as an acoustic 

pressure wave propagates out from a 

source. TL parameters vary with 

frequency, temperature, sea conditions, 

current, source and receiver depth, 

water depth, water chemistry, and 

bottom composition and topography. 

The general formula for underwater TL 

is: 

TL = B * Log10 (R1/R2), where 

TL = transmission loss in dB 

B = transmission loss coefficient 

R1 = the distance of the modeled SPL from 

the driven pile, and 

R2 = the distance from the driven pile of the 

initial measurement 

Absent site-specific acoustical 

monitoring with differing measured 

transmission loss, a practical spreading 

value of 15 is used as the transmission 

loss coefficient in the above formula. 

Site-specific transmission loss data for 

the Raritan Bay is not available; 

therefore, the default coefficient of 15 is 

used to determine the distances to the 

harassment thresholds. 

The ensonified area associated with 

Level A harassment is more technically 

challenging to predict due to the need 

to account for a duration component. 

Therefore, NMFS developed an optional 

User Spreadsheet tool to accompany the 

Technical Guidance that can be used to 

relatively simply predict an isopleth 

distance for use in conjunction with 

marine mammal density or occurrence 

to help predict potential takes. We note 

that because of some of the assumptions 

included in the methods underlying this 

optional tool, we anticipate that the 

resulting isopleth estimates are typically 

going to be overestimates of some 

degree, which may result in an 

overestimate of potential take by Level 

A harassment. However, this optional 

tool offers the best way to estimate 

isopleth distances when more 

sophisticated modeling methods are not 

available or practical. For stationary 

sources such as pile driving, the 

optional User Spreadsheet tool predicts 

the distance at which, if a marine 

mammal remained at that distance for 

the duration of the activity, it would be 

expected to incur PTS. Inputs used in 

the optional User Spreadsheet tool, and 

the resulting estimated isopleths, are 

reported below (table 6). The resulting 

estimated isopleths and the calculated 

Level B harassment isopleths are 

reported in table 7. 

TABLE 6—USER SPREADSHEET INPUTS

36-inch steel sheet piles 

Spreadsheet tab used (A.1) Vibratory 

pile driving 

(E.1) Impact 

pile driving 

Source Level (SPL) ..................................................................................................................................... 182 RMS 180 SEL 

Transmission Loss Coefficient ..................................................................................................................... 15 15 

Weighting Factor Adjustment (kHz) ............................................................................................................. 2.5 2 

Activity Duration per pile (minutes) ............................................................................................................. 10 N/A 

Number of strikes per pile ........................................................................................................................... .............................. 520 

Number of piles per day .............................................................................................................................. 12 12 

Distance of sound pressure level measurement ......................................................................................... 1 10 

TABLE 7—LEVEL A HARASSMENT AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS

Hammer type 

Level A harassment isopleths (m) | area of harassment zone (km2) * Level B 

harassment 

isopleth (m) | 

area of 

harassment zone 

(km2) * 

LF MF HF PW 

36-Inch Steel Sheet Piles 

Vibratory Pile Driving ............................. 27.2 2.4 40.3 16.6 13,594 | 426.13 

Impact Pile Driving ................................. 2,135.6 | 18.99 76.0 | 0.30 2,543.9 | 25.23 1,142.9 | 7.72 1,000 

* Harassment zone areas are clipped by viewshed. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
84802 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 6, 2023 / Notices 

Marine Mammal Occurrence 

In this section we provide information 

about the occurrence of marine 

mammals, including density or other 

relevant information which will inform 

the take calculations. 

Transco applied the Duke University 

Marine Geospatial Ecology Laboratory 

marine mammal habitat-based density 

models (https://seamap.env.duke.edu/ 

models/Duke/EC/) to estimate take from 

vibratory and impact pile driving 

(Roberts et al., 2016; Roberts et al., 

2023). These density data incorporate 

aerial and shipboard line-transect data 

from NMFS and other organizations and 

incorporate data from 8 physiographic 

and 16 dynamic oceanographic and 

biological covariates, and control for the 

influence of sea state, group size, 

availability bias, and perception bias on 

the probability of making a sighting. 

These density models were originally 

developed for all cetacean taxa in the 

U.S. Atlantic (Roberts et al., 2016). Most 

recently, all models were updated in 

2022 based on additional data as well as 

certain methodological improvements. 

More information is available online at 

https://seamap.env.duke.edu/models/ 

Duke/EC/. Marine mammal density 

estimates in the project area (animals/ 

km2) were obtained using the most 

recent model results for all taxa (Roberts 

et al., 2023). 

For each species, the average monthly 

density (June–September) near work 

area 3, Sandy Hook Channel, was 

calculated (table 8). Specifically, in a 

Geographic Information Systems, 

density rasters were clipped to polygons 

representing the zone of influence for 

Level A harassment zones for each 

hearing group and the largest Level B 

harassment zone, which applies to all 

hearing groups. Densities in Roberts et 

al., (2023) are provided in individuals 

per 100 square km, however they were 

converted to individuals per square km 

for ease of calculation. The monthly 

maximum density of individuals per 

square km for each zone of influence 

was averaged over the months of June to 

September near work area 3 to provide 

a single density estimate for each 

species or species group. The available 

density information provides densities 

for seals as a guild due to difficulty in 

distinguishing these species at sea. 

Similarly, density information for 

bottlenose dolphins does not 

differentiate between stocks. The 

resulting density values (table 8) were 

used to calculate take estimates of 

marine mammals for sheet pile 

installation activities. Note that other 

data sources were evaluated for 

pinnipeds (e.g., Save Coastal Wildlife 

reports) but were found unsuitable due 

to data quality and applicability. 

TABLE 8—AVERAGE MONTHLY DENSITY OF SPECIES IN THE PROJECT AREA

[June–September] 

Species 

Average monthly 

density (individual/ 

km2) used in Level B 

take calculations at 

work area 3, 

Sandy Hook channel 

(June–September) 

Average monthly 

density (individual/ 

km2) used in Level A 

take calculations at 

work area 3, 

Sandy Hook channel 

(June–September) 

Fin Whale ................................................................................................................................. 1.41361E–04 4.53952E–06 

Humpback Whale .................................................................................................................... 9.37889E–05 2.14387E–05 

Minke Whale ............................................................................................................................ 2.34113E–04 3.12779E–05 

Atlantic white-sided dolphin ..................................................................................................... 4.97340E–05 6.98975E–07 

Bottlenose dolphin ................................................................................................................... 1.88295E–01 4.76450E–02 

Harbor porpoise ....................................................................................................................... 1.64816E–04 3.27277E–05 

Common dolphin ...................................................................................................................... 5.91282E–04 1.24663E–05 

Atlantic Spotted Dolphin .......................................................................................................... 2.38665E–04 8.76649E–07 

Harp Seals, Gray Seals, Harbor Seals ................................................................................... 0.11387 0.11130 

Take Estimation 

Here we describe how the information 

provided above is synthesized to 

produce a quantitative estimate of the 

take that is reasonably likely to occur 

and proposed for authorization. 

Take estimates are the product of 

density, ensonified area, and number of 

days of pile driving work. Specifically, 

take estimates are calculated by 

multiplying the expected densities of 

marine mammals in the activity area(s) 

by the area of water likely to be 

ensonified above the NMFS defined 

threshold levels in a single day (24-hour 

period). Transco used the construction 

method that produced the largest 

isopleth to estimate exposure of marine 

mammal noise impacts (i.e., the largest 

ensonified area estimated for vibratory 

pile driving was used to estimate 

potential takes by Level B harassment, 

and the hearing group-specific 

ensonified areas estimated for impact 

pile driving were used to estimate 

potential Level A harassment). Next, 

that product is multiplied by the 

number of days vibratory or impact pile 

driving is likely to occur. The exposure 

estimate was rounded to the nearest 

whole number at the end of the 

calculation. A summary of this method 

is illustrated in the following formula: 

Estimated Take = D × ZOI × # of 

construction days 

Where: 

D = density estimate for each species within 

the ZOI 

ZOI = maximum daily ensonified area (km2) 

to relevant thresholds 

For bottlenose dolphins, the density 

data presented by Roberts et al., (2023) 

does not differentiate between 

bottlenose dolphin stocks. Thus, the 

take estimate for bottlenose dolphins 

calculated by the method described 

above resulted in an estimate of the total 

number of bottlenose dolphins expected 

to be taken, from all stocks (for a total 

of 6,419 takes by Level B harassment). 

However, as described above, both the 

Western North Atlantic Northern 

Migratory Coastal stock and the Western 

North Atlantic Offshore stock have the 

potential to occur in the project area. 

Because approximately 95% of the 

project area occurs in waters shallower 

than 20 m, we assign take to stock 

accordingly. Thus, we assume that 95 

percent of the total proposed authorized 

bottlenose dolphin takes would accrue 

to the Western North Atlantic Offshore 

stock (total 6,098 takes by Level B 

harassment), and 5 percent to the 

Western North Atlantic Northern 

Migratory Coastal stock (total 321 takes 

by Level B harassment) (table 9). 

Additional data regarding average 

group sizes from survey effort in the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 6, 2023 / Notices 84803 

region was considered to ensure 

adequate take estimates are evaluated. 

Take estimates for several species were 

adjusted based upon average groups 

sizes derived from NOAA Atlantic 

Marine Assessment Program for 

Protected Species data from 2010–2019 

shipboard distance sampling surveys 

(Palka et al., 2021). This is particularly 

true for uncommon or rare species with 

very low densities in the models. These 

calculated take estimates were adjusted 

for these species as follows: 

• Atlantic white-sided dolphin: Only 

1 take by Level B harassment was 

estimated but takes proposed for 

authorization were increased to the 

average number of dolphins in a group 

reported in Palka et al., 2021 (n = 12); 

• Common dolphin: Only 26 takes 

were estimated but takes proposed for 

authorization were increased to the 

average number of dolphins in a group 

reported in Palka et al., 2021 (n = 30); 

• Atlantic spotted dolphin: Only 9 

takes were estimated but takes proposed 

for authorization were increased to the 

average number of dolphins in a group 

reported in Palka et al., 2021 (n = 24); 

TABLE 9—PROPOSED TAKE BY STOCK AND HARASSMENT TYPE AND AS A PERCENTAGE OF STOCK ABUNDANCE

Species Stock 

Proposed authorized take Proposed 

take as a 

percentage of 

stock 

abundance * 

Level B 

harassment 

Level A 

harassment 

Fin Whale ........................................................ Western North Atlantic ................................... 5 0 <1 

Humpback Whale ............................................ Gulf of Maine .................................................. 3 0 <1

Minke Whale ................................................... Canadian East Coast ..................................... 8 0 <1 

Atlantic White-sided Dolphin ........................... Western North Atlantic ................................... 12 0 <1 

Bottlenose Dolphin .......................................... Northern Migratory Coastal ............................ 6,098 0 92 

Western North Atlantic Offshore .................... 321 0 <1 

Harbor Porpoise .............................................. Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy ........................... 6 0 <1 

Common Dolphin ............................................ Western North Atlantic ................................... 30 0 <1 

Atlantic Spotted Dolphin ................................. Western North Atlantic ................................... 24 0 <1 

Harbor Seal ..................................................... Western North Atlantic ................................... 3,813 69 6.3 

Gray Seal ........................................................ Western North Atlantic ................................... <1 

Harp Seal ........................................................ Western North Atlantic ................................... <1 

Proposed Mitigation 

In order to issue an IHA under section 

101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must 

set forth the permissible methods of 

taking pursuant to the activity, and 

other means of effecting the least 

practicable impact on the species or 

stock and its habitat, paying particular 

attention to rookeries, mating grounds, 

and areas of similar significance, and on 

the availability of the species or stock 

for taking for certain subsistence uses 

(latter not applicable for this action). 

NMFS regulations require applicants for 

incidental take authorizations to include 

information about the availability and 

feasibility (economic and technological) 

of equipment, methods, and manner of 

conducting the activity or other means 

of effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact upon the affected species or 

stocks, and their habitat (50 CFR 

216.104(a)(11)). 

In evaluating how mitigation may or 

may not be appropriate to ensure the 

least practicable adverse impact on 

species or stocks and their habitat, as 

well as subsistence uses where 

applicable, NMFS considers two 

primary factors: 

(1) The manner in which, and the 

degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure(s) is 

expected to reduce impacts to marine 

mammals, marine mammal species or 

stocks, and their habitat. This considers 

the nature of the potential adverse 

impact being mitigated (likelihood, 

scope, range). It further considers the 

likelihood that the measure will be 

effective if implemented (probability of 

accomplishing the mitigating result if 

implemented as planned), the 

likelihood of effective implementation 

(probability implemented as planned), 

and; 

(2) The practicability of the measures 

for applicant implementation, which 

may consider such things as cost, and 

impact on operations. 

Transco has indicated that pile 

driving will be conducted between June 

15 and September 15, a time of year 

when North Atlantic Right Whales are 

unlikely to occur near the project area. 

NMFS proposes the following 

mitigation measures be implemented for 

Transco’s pile installation activities. 

Shutdown Zones—For all pile driving 

activities, Transco would implement 

shutdowns within designated zones. 

The purpose of a shutdown zone is 

generally to define an area within which 

shutdown of the activity would occur 

upon sighting of a marine mammal (or 

in anticipation of an animal entering the 

defined area). Shutdown zones vary 

based on the activity type and marine 

mammal hearing group (table 10). In 

most cases, the shutdown zones are 

based on the estimated Level A 

harassment isopleth distances for each 

hearing group. However, in cases where 

it would be challenging to detect marine 

mammals at the Level A harassment 

isopleth and frequent shutdowns would 

create practicability concerns (e.g., for 

phocids during impact pile driving), 

smaller shutdown zones have been 

proposed (table 10). Additionally, 

Transco has agreed to implement a 

minimum shutdown zone of 60 m 

during all pile driving activities. 

Finally, construction supervisors and 

crews, Protected Species Observers 

(PSOs), and relevant Transco staff must 

avoid direct physical interaction with 

marine mammals during construction 

activity. If a marine mammal comes 

within 10 m of such activity, operations 

must cease and vessels must reduce 

speed to the minimum level required to 

maintain steerage and safe working 

conditions, as necessary to avoid direct 

physical interaction. If an activity is 

delayed or halted due to the presence of 

a marine mammal, the activity may not 

commence or resume until either the 

animal has voluntarily exited and been 

visually confirmed beyond the 

shutdown zone indicated in table 10 or 

15 minutes have passed without redetection of the animal. 

Construction activities must be halted 

upon observation of a species for which 

incidental take is not authorized or a 

species for which incidental take has 

been authorized but the authorized 

number of takes has been met entering 

or within the harassment zone. In the 

case of North Atlantic right whale, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
84804 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 6, 2023 / Notices 

construction activities must be halted 

upon observation of this species at any 

distance, regardless of its proximity to a 

harassment zone. 

TABLE 10—PROPOSED SHUTDOWN ZONES

Activity Pile type 

Shutdown zones (m) 

North Atlantic 

right whale 

Low 

frequency 

Mid 

frequency 

High 

frequency Phocid 

Vibratory Installation ..... 36-inch sheet .............. Any distance ............... 60 

Impact Installation ........ 1,000 80 200 150 

Protected Species Observers (PSOs)— 

The number and placement of PSOs 

during all construction activities 

(described in the Proposed Monitoring 

and Reporting section) would ensure 

that the entire shutdown zone is visible. 

Transco would employ at least two 

PSOs for all pile driving activities. 

Monitoring for Level A and Level B 

Harassment—PSOs would monitor the 

shutdown zones and beyond to the 

extent that PSOs can see. Monitoring 

beyond the shutdown zones enables 

observers to be aware of and 

communicate the presence of marine 

mammals in the project areas outside 

the shutdown zones and thus prepare 

for a potential cessation of activity 

should the animal enter the shutdown 

zone. If a marine mammal enters either 

harassment zone, PSOs will document 

the marine mammal’s presence and 

behavior. 

Pre-Activity Monitoring—Prior to the 

start of daily in-water construction 

activity, or whenever a break in pile 

driving of 30 minutes or longer occurs, 

PSOs will observe the shutdown, Level 

A harassment, and Level B harassment 

zones for a period of 30 minutes. Prestart clearance monitoring must be 

conducted during periods of visibility 

sufficient for the lead PSO to determine 

that the shutdown zones are clear of 

marine mammals. If the shutdown zone 

is obscured by fog or poor lighting 

conditions, in-water construction 

activity will not be initiated until the 

entire shutdown zone is visible. Pile 

driving may commence following 30 

minutes of observation when the 

determination is made that the 

shutdown zones are clear of marine 

mammals. If a marine mammal is 

observed entering or within shutdown 

zones, pile driving activity must be 

delayed or halted. If pile driving is 

delayed or halted due to the presence of 

a marine mammal, the activity may not 

commence or resume until either the 

animal has voluntarily exited and been 

visually confirmed beyond the 

shutdown zone or 15 minutes have 

passed without re-detection of the 

animal. If a marine mammal for which 

Level B harassment take is authorized is 

present in the Level B harassment zone, 

activities may begin. 

Soft-Start—The use of soft-start 

procedures are believed to provide 

additional protection to marine 

mammals by providing warning and/or 

giving marine mammals a chance to 

leave the area prior to the hammer 

operating at full capacity. For impact 

pile driving, contractors would be 

required to provide an initial set of three 

strikes from the hammer at reduced 

energy, with each strike followed by a 

30-second waiting period. This 

procedure would be conducted a total of 

three times before impact pile driving 

begins. Soft start would be implemented 

at the start of each day’s impact pile 

driving and at any time following 

cessation of impact pile driving for a 

period of 30 minutes or longer. Soft start 

is not required during vibratory pile 

driving activities. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

applicant’s proposed measures, as well 

as other measures considered by NMFS, 

NMFS has preliminarily determined 

that the proposed mitigation measures 

provide the means of effecting the least 

practicable impact on the affected 

species or stocks and their habitat, 

paying particular attention to rookeries, 

mating grounds, and areas of similar 

significance. 

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an IHA for an 

activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the 

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth 

requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such taking. 

The MMPA implementing regulations at 

50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that 

requests for authorizations must include 

the suggested means of accomplishing 

the necessary monitoring and reporting 

that will result in increased knowledge 

of the species and of the level of taking 

or impacts on populations of marine 

mammals that are expected to be 

present while conducting the activities. 

Effective reporting is critical both to 

compliance as well as ensuring that the 

most value is obtained from the required 

monitoring. 

Monitoring and reporting 

requirements prescribed by NMFS 

should contribute to improved 

understanding of one or more of the 

following: 

• Occurrence of marine mammal 

species or stocks in the area in which 

take is anticipated (e.g., presence, 

abundance, distribution, density); 

• Nature, scope, or context of likely 

marine mammal exposure to potential 

stressors/impacts (individual or 

cumulative, acute or chronic), through 

better understanding of: (1) action or 

environment (e.g., source 

characterization, propagation, ambient 

noise); (2) affected species (e.g., life 

history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence 

of marine mammal species with the 

activity; or (4) biological or behavioral 

context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or 

feeding areas); 

• Individual marine mammal 

responses (behavioral or physiological) 

to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or 

cumulative), other stressors, or 

cumulative impacts from multiple 

stressors; 

• How anticipated responses to 

stressors impact either: (1) long-term 

fitness and survival of individual 

marine mammals; or (2) populations, 

species, or stocks; 

• Effects on marine mammal habitat 

(e.g., marine mammal prey species, 

acoustic habitat, or other important 

physical components of marine 

mammal habitat); and, 

• Mitigation and monitoring 

effectiveness. 

Visual Monitoring—Marine mammal 

monitoring during pile driving activities 

must be conducted by NMFS-approved 

PSOs in a manner consistent with the 

following: 

• PSOs must be independent of the 

activity contractor (for example, 

employed by a subcontractor), and have 

no other assigned tasks during 

monitoring periods; 

• At least one PSO must have prior 

experience performing the duties of a 

PSO during construction activity 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1

I I I 

I I I 
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 6, 2023 / Notices 84805 

pursuant to a NMFS-issued incidental 

take authorization; 

• Other PSOs may substitute other 

relevant experience, education (degree 

in biological science or related field) or 

training for experience performing the 

duties of a PSO during construction 

activities pursuant to a NMFS-issued 

incidental take authorization. 

• Where a team of three or more PSOs 

is required, a lead observer or 

monitoring coordinator will be 

designated. The lead observer will be 

required to have prior experience 

working as a marine mammal observer 

during construction activity pursuant to 

a NMFS-issued incidental take 

authorization; and, 

• PSOs must be approved by NMFS 

prior to beginning any activity subject to 

this IHA. 

PSOs should also have the following 

additional qualifications: 

• Ability to conduct field 

observations and collect data according 

to assigned protocols; 

• Experience or training in the field 

identification of marine mammals, 

including identification of behaviors; 

• Sufficient training, orientation, or 

experience with the construction 

operation to provide for personal safety 

during observations; 

• Writing skills sufficient to prepare a 

report of observations including, but not 

limited to, the number and species of 

marine mammals observed; dates and 

times when in-water construction 

activities were conducted; dates, times, 

and reason for implementation of 

mitigation (or why mitigation was note 

implemented when required); and 

marine mammal behavior; and 

• Ability to communicate orally, by 

radio or in person, with project 

personnel to provide real-time 

information on marine mammals 

observed in the area as necessary. 

Visual monitoring will be conducted 

by a minimum of two trained PSOs 

positioned at suitable vantage points on 

or near the maintenance barge. One PSO 

will have an unobstructed view of all 

water within the shutdown zone. 

Remaining PSOs will observe as much 

as the Level A and Level B harassment 

zones as possible. 

Monitoring will be conducted 30 

minutes before, during, and 30 minutes 

after all in water construction activities. 

In addition, PSOs will record all 

incidents of marine mammal 

occurrence, regardless of distance from 

activity, and will document any 

behavioral reactions in concert with 

distance from piles being driven or 

removed. Pile driving activities include 

the time to install or remove a single 

pile or series of piles, as long as the time 

elapsed between uses of the pile driving 

equipment is no more than 30 minutes. 

Reporting 

Transco will submit a draft marine 

mammal monitoring report to NMFS 

within 90 days after the completion of 

pile driving activities, or 60 days prior 

to a requested date of issuance of any 

future IHAs for the project, or other 

projects at the same location, whichever 

comes first. The marine mammal 

monitoring report will include an 

overall description of work completed, 

a narrative regarding marine mammal 

sightings, and associated PSO data 

sheets. Specifically, the report will 

include: 

• Dates and times (begin and end) of 

all marine mammal monitoring; 

• Construction activities occurring 

during each daily observation period, 

including: (1) The number and type of 

piles that were driven and the method 

(e.g., impact or vibratory); and, (2) Total 

duration of driving time for each pile 

(vibratory driving) and number of 

strikes for each pile (impact driving); 

• PSO locations during marine 

mammal monitoring; 

• Environmental conditions during 

monitoring periods (at beginning and 

end of PSO shift and whenever 

conditions change significantly), 

including Beaufort sea state and any 

other relevant weather conditions 

including cloud cover, fog, sun glare, 

and overall visibility to the horizon, and 

estimated observable distance; 

• Upon observation of a marine 

mammal, the following information: (1) 

Name of PSO who sighted the animal(s) 

and PSO location and activity at time of 

sighting; (2) Time of sighting; (3) 

Identification of the animal(s) (e.g., 

genus/species, lowest possible 

taxonomic level, or unidentified), PSO 

confidence in identification, and the 

composition of the group if there is a 

mix of species; (4) Distance and location 

of each observed marine mammal 

relative to the pile being driven for each 

sighting; (5) Estimated number of 

animals (min/max/best estimate); (6) 

Estimated number of animals by cohort 

(adults, juveniles, neonates, group 

composition, etc.); (7) Animal’s closest 

point of approach and estimated time 

spent within the harassment zone; (8) 

Description of any marine mammal 

behavioral observations (e.g., observed 

behaviors such as feeding or traveling), 

including an assessment of behavioral 

responses thought to have resulted from 

the activity (e.g., no response or changes 

in behavioral state such as ceasing 

feeding, changing direction, flushing, or 

breaching); 

• Number of marine mammals 

detected within the harassment zones, 

by species; and, 

• Detailed information about 

implementation of any mitigation (e.g., 

shutdowns and delays), a description of 

specific actions that ensued, and 

resulting changes in behavior of the 

animal(s), if any. 

A final report must be prepared and 

submitted within 30 calendar days 

following receipt of any NMFS 

comments on the draft report. If no 

comments are received from NMFS 

within 30 calendar days of receipt of the 

draft report, the report shall be 

considered final. All PSO data would be 

submitted electronically in a format that 

can be queried such as a spreadsheet or 

database and would be submitted with 

the draft marine mammal report. 

In the event that personnel involved 

in the construction activities discover 

an injured or dead marine mammal, the 

Holder must report the incident to the 

Office of Protected Resources (OPR), 

NMFS (PR.ITP.MonitoringReports@

noaa.gov and itp.fleming@noaa.gov) and 

Greater Atlantic Region New England/ 

Mid-Atlantic Regional Stranding 

Coordinator (978–282–8478 or 978– 

281–9291) as soon as feasible. If the 

death or injury was clearly caused by 

the specified activity, the Holder must 

immediately cease the activities until 

NMFS OPR is able to review the 

circumstances of the incident and 

determine what, if any, additional 

measures are appropriate to ensure 

compliance with the terms of this IHA. 

The Holder must not resume their 

activities until notified by NMFS. The 

report must include the following 

information: 

• Time, date, and location (latitude/ 

longitude) of the first discovery (and 

updated location information if known 

and applicable); 

• Species identification (if known) or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

• Condition of the animal(s) 

(including carcass condition if the 

animal is dead); 

• Observed behaviors of the 

animal(s), if alive; 

• If available, photographs or video 

footage of the animal(s); and 

• General circumstances under which 

the animal was discovered. 

Negligible Impact Analysis and 

Determination 

NMFS has defined negligible impact 

as an impact resulting from the 

specified activity that cannot be 

reasonably expected to, and is not 

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
84806 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 6, 2023 / Notices 

(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact 

finding is based on the lack of likely 

adverse effects on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival (i.e., populationlevel effects). An estimate of the number 

of takes alone is not enough information 

on which to base an impact 

determination. In addition to 

considering estimates of the number of 

marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’ 

through harassment, NMFS considers 

other factors, such as the likely nature 

of any impacts or responses (e.g., 

intensity, duration), the context of any 

impacts or responses (e.g., critical 

reproductive time or location, foraging 

impacts affecting energetics), as well as 

effects on habitat, and the likely 

effectiveness of the mitigation. We also 

assess the number, intensity, and 

context of estimated takes by evaluating 

this information relative to population 

status. Consistent with the 1989 

preamble for NMFS’ implementing 

regulations (54 FR 40338, September 29, 

1989), the impacts from other past and 

ongoing anthropogenic activities are 

incorporated into this analysis via their 

impacts on the baseline (e.g., as 

reflected in the regulatory status of the 

species, population size and growth rate 

where known, ongoing sources of 

human-caused mortality, or ambient 

noise levels). 

To avoid repetition, the majority of 

our analysis applies to all the species 

listed in table 2, given that many of the 

anticipated effects of this project on 

different marine mammal stocks are 

expected to be relatively similar in 

nature. Where there are meaningful 

differences between species or stocks, or 

groups of species, in anticipated 

individual responses to activities, 

impact of expected take on the 

population due to differences in 

population status, or impacts on habitat, 

they are described independently in the 

analysis below. 

Pile driving associated with the 

Transco LNYBL maintenance project, as 

outlined previously, has the potential to 

disturb or displace marine mammals. 

Specifically, the specified activities may 

result in take, in the form of Level B 

harassment and, for some species, Level 

A harassment, from underwater sounds 

generated by pile driving. 

No serious injury or mortality would 

be expected, even in the absence of 

required mitigation measures, given the 

nature of the activities. Further, no take 

by Level A harassment is anticipated for 

low-frequency, mid-frequency, or highfrequency cetaceans. The potential for 

harassment would be minimized 

through the implementation of planned 

mitigation measures (see Proposed 

Mitigation section). 

Take by Level A harassment is 

expected for pinnipeds (harbor seal, 

harp seal, and gray seal). Any take by 

Level A harassment is expected to arise 

from, at most, a small degree of PTS 

(i.e., minor degradation of hearing 

capabilities within regions of hearing 

that align most completely with the 

energy produced by impact pile driving 

such as the low-frequency region below 

2 kHz), not severe hearing impairment 

or impairment within the ranges of 

greatest hearing sensitivity. Animals 

would need to be exposed to higher 

levels and/or longer duration than are 

expected to occur here in order to incur 

any more than a small degree of PTS. 

Further, the amount of take proposed 

for authorization by Level A harassment 

is very low for all marine mammal 

stocks and species. For eight species, 

NMFS anticipates no Level A 

harassment take over the duration of 

Transco’s planned activities; for 

pinnipeds, NMFS expects no more than 

69 takes by Level A harassment across 

all 3 pinniped species (harbor seal, gray 

seal, harp seal). If hearing impairment 

occurs, it is most likely that the affected 

animal would lose only a few decibels 

in its hearing sensitivity. Due to the 

small degree anticipated, any PTS 

potential incurred would not be 

expected to affect the reproductive 

success or survival of any individuals, 

much less result in adverse impacts on 

the species or stock. 

Additionally, some subset of the 

individuals that are behaviorally 

harassed could also simultaneously 

incur some small degree of TTS for a 

short duration of time. However, since 

the hearing sensitivity of individuals 

that incur TTS is expected to recover 

completely within minutes to hours, it 

is unlikely that the brief hearing 

impairment would affect the 

individual’s long-term ability to forage 

and communicate with conspecifics, 

and would therefore not likely impact 

reproduction or survival of any 

individual marine mammal, let alone 

adversely affect rates of recruitment or 

survival of the species or stock. 

As described above, NMFS expects 

that marine mammals would likely 

move away from an aversive stimulus, 

especially at levels that would be 

expected to result in PTS, given 

sufficient notice through use of soft 

start. Transco would also shut down 

pile driving activities if marine 

mammals enter the shutdown zones 

(table 10) further minimizing the degree 

of PTS that would be incurred. 

Effects on individuals that are taken 

by Level B harassment in the form of 

behavioral disruption, on the basis of 

reports in the literature as well as 

monitoring from other similar activities, 

would likely be limited to reactions 

such as avoidance, increased swimming 

speeds, increased surfacing time, or 

decreased foraging (if such activity were 

occurring) (e.g., Thorson and Reyff, 

2006). Most likely, individuals would 

simply move away from the sound 

source and temporarily avoid the area 

where pile driving is occurring. If sound 

produced by project activities is 

sufficiently disturbing, animals are 

likely to simply avoid the area while the 

activities are occurring. We expect that 

any avoidance of the project areas by 

marine mammals would be temporary 

in nature and that any marine mammals 

that avoid the project areas during 

construction would not be permanently 

displaced. Short-term avoidance of the 

project areas and energetic impacts of 

interrupted foraging or other important 

behaviors is unlikely to affect the 

reproduction or survival of individual 

marine mammals, and the effects of 

behavioral disturbance on individuals is 

not likely to accrue in a manner that 

would affect the rates of recruitment or 

survival of any affected stock. 

As described above, humpback 

whales, and gray, harbor and harp seals 

are experiencing ongoing UMEs. With 

regard to humpback whales, the UME 

does not yet provide cause for concern 

regarding population-level impacts. 

Despite the UME, the relevant 

population of humpback whales (the 

West Indies breeding population, or 

DPS) remains healthy. The West Indies 

DPS, which consists of the whales 

whose breeding range includes the 

Atlantic margin of the Antilles from 

Cuba to northern Venezuela, and whose 

feeding range primarily includes the 

Gulf of Maine, eastern Canada, and 

western Greenland, was delisted. The 

status review identified harmful algal 

blooms, vessel collisions, and fishing 

gear entanglements as relevant threats 

for this DPS, but noted that all other 

threats are considered likely to have no 

or minor impact on population size or 

the growth rate of this DPS (Bettridge et 

al., 2015). As described in Bettridge et 

al., (2015), the West Indies DPS has a 

substantial population size (i.e., 

approximately 10,000; Stevick et al., 

2003; Smith et al., 1999; Bettridge et al., 

2015), and appears to be experiencing 

consistent growth. 

In regards to pinnipeds (harbor seals, 

gray seals and harp seals), we do not 

expect takes that may be authorized 

under this IHA to exacerbate or 

compound upon ongoing UMEs. 

Between July 2018 and March 2020, 

elevated seal mortalities occurred across 

ME, NH and MA, and as far south as VA 

due to phocine distemper virus (the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 6, 2023 / Notices 84807 

UME is still active but pending closure). 

Since June 2022, a UME has been 

declared for Northeast pinnipeds in 

which elevated numbers of sick and 

dead harbor seals, gray seals, and harp 

seals have been documented along the 

southern and central coast of ME 

(NOAA Fisheries, 2022). Between June 

1, 2022 and July 16, 2023, 65 grays 

seals, 379 harbor seals, and 6 harp seals 

have stranded. As noted previously, no 

injury, serious injury, or mortality is 

expected or will be authorized, and 

takes of harbor seal, gray seal, and harp 

seal will be minimized through the 

incorporation of the required mitigation 

measures. The population abundance 

for these species is 61,336, 27,300, and 

7.6 million, respectively (Hayes et al., 

2022). The 3,882 takes that may be 

authorized across these species 

represent a small proportion of each 

population and as such we do not 

expect this authorization to exacerbate 

or compound upon these UMEs. 

The project is also not expected to 

have significant adverse effects on 

affected marine mammals’ habitats. No 

ESA-designated critical habitat or 

recognized Biologically Important Areas 

are located within the project area. The 

project activities would not modify 

existing marine mammal habitat for a 

significant amount of time. The 

activities may cause a low level of 

turbidity in the water column and some 

fish may leave the area of disturbance, 

thus temporarily impacting marine 

mammals’ foraging opportunities in a 

limited portion of the foraging range; 

but, because of the short duration of the 

activities and the relatively small area of 

the habitat that may be affected (with no 

known particular importance to marine 

mammals), the impacts to marine 

mammal habitat are not expected to 

cause significant or long-term negative 

consequences. The closest pinniped 

haulout is located 2.9 km from the work 

area but does not intersect with the 

harassment zones. 

For all species and stocks, take would 

occur within a limited, relatively 

confined area (primarily Raritan Bay) of 

the stock’s range, which is not of 

particular importance for marine 

mammals that may occur there. Given 

the availability of suitable habitat 

nearby, any displacement of marine 

mammals from the project areas is not 

expected to affect marine mammals’ 

fitness, survival, and reproduction due 

to the limited geographic area that 

would be affected in comparison to the 

much larger habitat for marine 

mammals outside the bay along the NJ 

and NY coasts. Additionally, NMFS 

anticipates that the prescribed 

mitigation will minimize the duration 

and intensity of expected harassment 

events. 

Some individual marine mammals in 

the project area, such as harbor seals or 

bottlenose dolphins, may be present and 

be subject to repeated exposure to sound 

from pile driving activities on multiple 

days. However, pile driving and 

extraction is not expected to occur on 

every day, and these individuals would 

likely return to normal behavior during 

gaps in pile driving activity within each 

day of construction and in between 

work days. As discussed above, 

individuals could temporarily relocate 

during construction activities to reduce 

exposure to elevated sound levels from 

the project. Additionally, haulout 

habitat available for pinnipeds does not 

intersect with the harassment zones. 

Therefore, any behavioral effects of 

repeated or long duration exposures are 

not expected to negatively affect 

survival or reproductive success of any 

individuals. Thus, even repeated Level 

B harassment of some small subset of an 

overall stock is unlikely to result in any 

effects on rates of reproduction and 

survival of the stock. 

In summary and as described above, 

the following factors primarily support 

our preliminary determination that the 

impacts resulting from this activity are 

not expected to adversely affect any of 

the species or stocks through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival: 

• No serious injury or mortality is 

anticipated or authorized; 

• The anticipated impacts of the 

proposed activity on marine mammals 

would be temporary behavioral changes 

due to avoidance of the project area and 

limited instances of Level A harassment 

in the form of a slight PTS for 

pinnipeds. Potential instances of 

exposure above the Level A harassment 

threshold are expected to be relatively 

low for most species; 

• The availability of alternate areas of 

similar habitat value nearby; 

• Effects on species that serve as prey 

species for marine mammals from the 

proposed project are expected to be 

short-term and are not expected to result 

in significant or long-term consequences 

for individual marine mammals, or to 

contribute to adverse impacts on their 

populations; 

• There are no known important 

feeding, breeding, or calving areas in the 

project area. 

• The proposed mitigation measures, 

including visual monitoring, shutdown 

zones, and soft start, are expected to 

minimize potential impacts to marine 

mammals. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat, and taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

proposed monitoring and mitigation 

measures, NMFS preliminarily finds 

that the total marine mammal take from 

the proposed activity will have a 

negligible impact on all affected marine 

mammal species or stocks. 

Small Numbers 

As noted previously, only take of 

small numbers of marine mammals may 

be authorized under sections 

101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA for 

specified activities other than military 

readiness activities. The MMPA does 

not define small numbers and so, in 

practice, where estimated numbers are 

available, NMFS compares the number 

of individuals taken to the most 

appropriate estimation of abundance of 

the relevant species or stock in our 

determination of whether an 

authorization is limited to small 

numbers of marine mammals. When the 

predicted number of individuals to be 

taken is fewer than one-third of the 

species or stock abundance, the take is 

considered to be of small numbers. 

Additionally, other qualitative factors 

may be considered in the analysis, such 

as the temporal or spatial scale of the 

activities. 

We propose to authorize incidental 

take of 12 marine mammal stocks. The 

total amount of taking proposed for 

authorization is well below one-third of 

the estimated stock abundance for all 

species except for the western north 

Atlantic northern coastal migratory 

stock of bottlenose dolphins (table 9). 

The total number of authorized takes 

for bottlenose dolphins, if assumed to 

accrue solely to new individuals of the 

northern migratory coastal stock, is >90 

percent of the total stock abundance, 

which is currently estimated as 6,639. 

However, these numbers represent the 

estimated incidents of take, not the 

number of individuals taken. That is, it 

is highly likely that a relatively small 

subset of these bottlenose dolphins will 

be harassed by project activities. 

Western North Atlantic Northern 

Migratory Coastal bottlenose dolphins 

make broadscale, seasonal migrations in 

coastal waters of the Western north 

Atlantic. During the warm months, 

when the project is planned, their range 

extends from the shoreline to the 20 m 

isobaths between Assateague, VA to 

Long Island, NY (Garrison et al., 2017b), 

an area spanning approximately 300 

linear km of coastline. It is likely that 

the majority of the Western North 

Atlantic Northern Migratory Coastal 

bottlenose dolphins would not occur 

within waters ensonified by project 

activities. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
84808 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 6, 2023 / Notices 

In summary, the Western North 

Atlantic Northern Migratory Coastal 

bottlenose dolphins are not expected to 

occur in a significant portion of the 

larger ZOI. Given that the specified 

activity will be stationary within an area 

not recognized as any special 

significance that would serve to attract 

or aggregate dolphins, we therefore 

believe that the estimated numbers of 

takes, were they to occur, likely 

represent repeated exposures of a much 

smaller number of bottlenose dolphins 

and that these estimated incidents of 

take represent small numbers of 

bottlenose dolphins. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the proposed activity 

(including the proposed mitigation and 

monitoring measures) and the 

anticipated take of marine mammals, 

NMFS preliminarily finds that small 

numbers of marine mammals would be 

taken relative to the population size of 

the affected species or stocks. 

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis 

and Determination 

There are no relevant subsistence uses 

of the affected marine mammal stocks or 

species implicated by this action. 

Therefore, NMFS has determined that 

the total taking of affected species or 

stocks would not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of 

such species or stocks for taking for 

subsistence purposes. 

Endangered Species Act 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal 

agency insure that any action it 

authorizes, funds, or carries out is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or 

threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat. To ensure 

ESA compliance for the issuance of 

IHAs, NMFS consults internally 

whenever we propose to authorize take 

for endangered or threatened species, in 

this case with the NMFS Greater 

Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office 

(GARFO). 

NMFS is proposing to authorize take 

of the fin whale, which is listed under 

the ESA. The NMFS Office of Protected 

Resources has requested initiation of 

section 7 consultation with GARFO for 

the issuance of this IHA. NMFS will 

conclude the ESA consultation prior to 

reaching a determination regarding the 

proposed issuance of the authorization. 

Proposed Authorization 

As a result of these preliminary 

determinations, NMFS proposes to issue 

an IHA to Transco for conducting the 

LNYBL Maintenance Project in Sandy 

Hook Channel, New Jersey (NJ) between 

June and August 2024, provided the 

previously mentioned mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting requirements 

are incorporated. A draft of the 

proposed IHA can be found at: https:// 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/ 

incidental-take-authorizations-undermarine-mammal-protection-act. 

Request for Public Comments 

We request comment on our analyses, 

the proposed authorization, and any 

other aspect of this notice of proposed 

IHA for the proposed construction 

project. We also request comment on the 

potential renewal of this proposed IHA 

as described in the paragraph below. 

Please include with your comments any 

supporting data or literature citations to 

help inform decisions on the request for 

this IHA or a subsequent renewal IHA. 

On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may 

issue a one-time, 1-year renewal IHA 

following notice to the public providing 

an additional 15 days for public 

comments when (1) up to another year 

of identical or nearly identical activities 

as described in the Description of 

Proposed Activity section of this notice 

is planned or (2) the activities as 

described in the Description of 

Proposed Activity section of this notice 

would not be completed by the time the 

IHA expires and a renewal would allow 

for completion of the activities beyond 

that described in the Dates and Duration 

section of this notice, provided all of the 

following conditions are met: 

• A request for renewal is received no 

later than 60 days prior to the needed 

renewal IHA effective date (recognizing 

that the renewal IHA expiration date 

cannot extend beyond 1 year from 

expiration of the initial IHA). 

• The request for renewal must 

include the following: 

(1) An explanation that the activities 

to be conducted under the requested 

renewal IHA are identical to the 

activities analyzed under the initial 

IHA, are a subset of the activities, or 

include changes so minor (e.g., 

reduction in pile size) that the changes 

do not affect the previous analyses, 

mitigation and monitoring 

requirements, or take estimates (with 

the exception of reducing the type or 

amount of take). 

(2) A preliminary monitoring report 

showing the results of the required 

monitoring to date and an explanation 

showing that the monitoring results do 

not indicate impacts of a scale or nature 

not previously analyzed or authorized. 

Upon review of the request for 

renewal, the status of the affected 

species or stocks, and any other 

pertinent information, NMFS 

determines that there are no more than 

minor changes in the activities, the 

mitigation and monitoring measures 

will remain the same and appropriate, 

and the findings in the initial IHA 

remain valid. 

Dated: November 30, 2023. 

Kimberly Damon-Randall, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2023–26704 Filed 12–5–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Air Force 

[Docket ID: USAF–2023–HQ–0015] 

Proposed Collection; Comment 

Request 

AGENCY: Department of the Air Force, 

Department of Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: 60-Day information collection 

notice. 

SUMMARY: In compliance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the 

Department of the Air Force (AF) 

announces a proposed public 

information collection and seeks public 

comment on the provisions thereof. 

Comments are invited on: whether the 

proposed collection of information is 

necessary for the proper performance of 

the functions of the agency, including 

whether the information shall have 

practical utility; the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden of the 

proposed information collection; ways 

to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and ways to minimize the 

burden of the information collection on 

respondents, including through the use 

of automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

DATES: Consideration will be given to all 

comments received by February 5, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by docket number and title, 

by any of the following methods: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Mail: Department of Defense, Office of 

the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense 

for Privacy, Civil Liberties, and 

Transparency, Regulatory Directorate, 

4800 Mark Center Drive, Mailbox #24, 

Suite 08D09, Alexandria, VA 22350– 

1700. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name, docket 

number and title for this Federal 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1